Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, December 8, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Introduction of Visitors.

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I have a legislative return and new releases from my conference in Saskatoon.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I have for tabling five legislative returns.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

PETITIONS

Petition No. 5 - response

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I rise today to respond to the petition that was filed by the Leader of the Official Opposition two weeks ago. I must say that it is great to have this opportunity again to discuss an issue that is very dear to our hearts. Of course this petition has to do with the high cost of power and the concern over the escalating rates that we pay for electricity. I have had an opportunity to discuss these issues before in the House, but I would like to recap a few of these issues in responding to this serious petition.

As Members know, this government put $2.4 million into the system by way of a loan to Curragh that went directly to Yukon Energy Corporation and resulted in a substantial reduction in the funds required for this year by the Yukon Energy Corporation, thus cutting into a rider that was being asked for by the utility companies and cutting it in half. Then, a little over a month ago, we announced our rate relief program, whereby we have said that we will put back $3.5 million in profits each year for the next two years, and that will be targeted to residents and small businesses, but not paid to governments except for a modest amount of relief to municipalities.

This is in stark contrast to the motion and the process that is being advocated by the Official Opposition and a motion that has been debated in this House - a motion that we, on this side, refer to as the “Papa Doc motion” because of its similarity in philosophy to the doctrines of many banana republics.

That motion would result in a decrease of 5.5 percent return on equity. The equity in the system is approximately a little over $50 million.

The result would be a relief to consumers in the Yukon of less than $3 million, as opposed to the $3.5 million that we are giving back. Even more outrageous, the proposed motion and the solution proposed by the Official Opposition would result in the actual relief being about half of the relief that is being given by our program, because the less than $3 million would be divided equally among all consumers, including governments, which are a very large consuming group. Instead of Yukoners being given an eight-percent ceiling on the last increase allowed by the board, they would be facing a 15.5 percent increase.

On top of that, as we have said many times, that particular motion would have a severe negative impact on investment in the territory, and this is another reason we call it the “Papa Doc motion”. I think we have pretty well established that the real reason for the motion being put forward by the Official Opposition is not to assist the ratepayer - how could it be when it does not do the job that our package does - but it is really being put forward to discourage investment in the utilities in the Yukon. It is a thinly disguised attempt to spoil the chances of us bringing the First Nations in as partners in the Energy Corporation, as well as other potential Yukon investors.

In responding to the petition, I want to say that we are doing the best job we can to assist residents and small businesses in Yukon, while at the same time maintaining an arm’s-length relationship with utility companies, and ensuring that the role of the Public Utilities Board is not totally decimated.

I think this is a very valuable petition. I enjoyed the chance to discuss it and I really hope that the Leader of the Official Opposition will come to this House again with further petitions.

Speaker: Introductions of Bills.

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

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Job security

Ms. Moorcroft: Can the Government Leader tell the House what job security is to his mind?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Member opposite is bound and determined to politicize the collective bargaining process. I have said time and time again that I am not going to engage in that kind of discussion when negotiations are going to conciliation in a couple of days.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Ms. Moorcroft: The Minister’s stonewalling is not the least bit entertaining to this side of the House, or to the public.

What are the Government Leader’s reasons for opposing job security?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I will rise again to restate what I have stated probably 30 times in this session of the Legislature. We, on this side of the House, are not going to politicize the collective bargaining system. The Official Opposition is supposed to be a proponent of the labour workers in the Yukon and of the collective bargaining system, yet they are trying to politicize it.

Ms. Moorcroft: I am trying to get this Minister to give us an indication of what his government’s policy is. They will not answer any questions.

Can the Government Leader tell us why he is opposed to job security?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Again, I am not going to politicize the collective bargaining system.

Question re: Job security

Ms. Moorcroft: I wonder why the Government Leader sought political office, when he refuses to answer questions. I wonder why the Government Leader is sitting there ignoring our questions as if they are not relevant. These are relevant questions.

Job security is not socialist dogma. Job security respects employees. Can the Government Leader tell us if he has any philosophical reasons for opposing job security?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I know why I sought public office, but I am not so sure I know why the Member opposite did. Perhaps she should have sought union negotiations, because that is what she has embarked on, and is trying to do it in a political forum. I am not going to engage in it.

Ms. Moorcroft: The Government Leader is no negotiator, when he will not answer questions in this House.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Ms. Moorcroft: Negotiating is one of a number of skills you may need in response to the heckling by the Minister of Education, and one that this government clearly does not have.

Could the Government Leader tell me if he is prepared to take a look at just what job security means for the Yukon’s public and private sector workers?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We are not going to negotiate collective bargaining in this Legislature and I am not prepared to get involved in any such discussion while the bargaining process is being undertaken.

Ms. Moorcroft: I am going to ask the Minister one more time to stop stonewalling. Can the Minister not even define what job security is or why he is opposed to it?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: This Minister is not stonewalling. I have respect for the collective bargaining process that is being carried out at this time, even if the Member opposite does not.

Question re: Auditor General report on human resource management

Mr. Cable: A short while ago, the government tabled the report of the Auditor General - a report on the study of human resource management in the Yukon Territorial Government. The question I have is for the Government Leader. Does the government, and in particular the Government Leader, accept the finding as set out in the report?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Certainly we accept the findings that were set out in the report. That is why the report was commissioned. It was commissioned by the previous administration and, when we took over office, we were asked if we wanted to continue with it and we said we certainly did.

A lot of the recommendations that were in the report have already been acted on. Other ones are being acted on, and the whole report is being distributed through the departments for the managers to look at and utilize in order to try to get a better working relationship with the public sector.

Mr. Cable: While the Government Leader was away, the Minister of Education indicated that several of the recommendations could be put into place fairly quickly, and this has been reinforced by what the Government Leader just said.

Could the Government Leader indicate which major recommendations are being put into place now?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I do not believe I have that right here in my notes but I can get that information for the Member opposite. A lot of them are being worked on and a lot of them were being worked on prior even to the report being issued. It just reinforced some of the areas where we had concerns. So, they are being acted on and I will get a list for the Member.

Mr. Cable: Are there any areas of disagreement between the government and the recommendations in the report issued by the Auditor General?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: None have been brought to my attention. I have not had a chance to read the report in full detail yet, but I expect to soon. The Public Service Commission has responded that they feel quite comfortable with the report.

Question re: Yukon Economic Strategy review

Mr. Penikett: I have a question for the Government Leader with respect to the terms of reference for the Yukon economic conference that he tabled information about yesterday.

What is the policy of this government with respect to compliance with the economic planning provisions of the umbrella final agreement, including the clause “the Yukon shall ensure that at least one-quarter of the delegates invited to attend the annual review of the Yukon Economic Strategy are Yukon Indian people, or their representatives.” What is the government’s position in terms of adherence to that provision of the umbrella final agreement?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I am not exactly sure what the Member wants. I believe that there is in excess of 25-percent representation on the council at this time, and I believe that it complies with the UFA.

Mr. Penikett: The UFA refers to a requirement of the government to ensure the attendance of First Nations at “ an annual review of the Economic Strategy”, which is a precise document approved by this House.

What is the Government Leader’s position in terms of compliance with that provision of the UFA, chapter 22.7.2?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe that we are complying with the UFA. The UFA in section 22.3.2 refers to an annual review, but it does not create an obligation for such a review. If a review is held, 25 percent of the participants must be First Nations.

Mr. Penikett: This is not the first provision of the umbrella final agreement that this government seems to be trying to wiggle out of.

Can the Government Leader explain the reason - since the Yukon Economic Strategy was adopted by all Members of this House, and he did not promise to throw it out or abandon it completely during his election campaign - why he is trying to avoid the obligation contained in this clause, which says that “the Yukon”, meaning the Yukon government, “shall ensure that at least one-quarter of the delegates invited to attend the annual review”, that means every year, “of the Yukon Economic Strategy”? Not some other strategy, not a strategy, but The Yukon Economic Strategy adopted by this House.

What reason does the Government Leader have for violating this provision in the umbrella final agreement?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The allegations by the Member opposite are totally ridiculous.

The umbrella final agreement does state “economic strategy”; it does not state the Economic Strategy that the previous administration had in place, and we are not in violation of the umbrella final agreement.

Question re: Yukon Economic Strategy review

Mr. Penikett: The Government Leader says that he is not violating the provisions of this agreement. Has the Government Leader obtained competent legal advice on the question, as to whether the Government of the Yukon is in compliance with that chapter of the UFA, or not? And if he has, will he table the legal opinion in this House?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Certainly, we have had legal advice and we certainly will not table the legal opinion in this House - the Leader of the Official Opposition never would.

Mr. Penikett: They have no respect for the law whatsoever. The Government Leader has just talked about respect for processes. He does not even respect the existing provisions of the collective agreement that talk about job security. This is not the first breach. The government has violated the provisions of the forestry transfer, fish and wildlife, Tombstone Mountain and the Economic Strategy, and the umbrella final agreement has not even been adopted in Ottawa.

Let me ask the Government Leader this: since it was clearly intended in the land claims agreement and in the Economic Development Act and the Environment Act that a balance of interests would be invited to the annual review of the Yukon Economic Strategy, and there are no references contained in his terms of references to invitations to the representatives of the environment, labour and women’s movement, only to private sector interests, First Nations and municipal governments, thenan the Government Leader tell us whether, under his rewriting of the law, environmental interests, working people and women’s organizations will be invited to attend the economic review?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Leader of the Official Opposition has just acquired a law degree. He perceives himself to be the only voice on what is legal and what is illegal. It is only by his interpretation - and he is the only one who seems to be concerned. We have a balanced representation on the Council on the Economy and the Environment.

Mr. Penikett: I do not think the Government Leader would want to get into a contest on education or on adherence to laws or on knowledge of public policy matters with anyone else in this House. I asked a question about the economic review. I will ask it again. Will the Government Leader, consistent with the intent of the legislation in the Economic Development Act, the Environment Act and the land claims agreement, be inviting a balance of interests, and will those interests include representatives of environmental groups, women’s groups and trade union organizations, when this conference is held?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We have appointed a Council on the Economy and the Environment. They have all the pertinent legislation the Member opposite is standing up and alluding to in this House. I am sure that, when the review is carried out, they will do it in a manner according to legislation that is in place.

Question re: Yukon Economic Strategy review

Mr. Penikett: Since I believe that, contrary to the law, he has not appointed anyone to the Council on the Economy and the Environment to represent all Yukon women’s interests, can the Government Leader tell us if his government is going to guarantee that organizations like the Status of Women Council will be invited to participate in the economic review?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I am not sure I heard the Member of the Official Opposition. Is he telling this House that Yukon native women cannot represent Yukon women’s interests?

We have a balanced board in the Council on the Economy and the Environment, and they will be doing what is necessary to fulfill their requirements under the law.

Mr. Penikett: Only someone massively ignorant on the question would claim that the Yukon Indian Women’s Association is constituted, organized and structured to represent all Yukon women.

Will the Government Leader answer the question? Is his government going to guarantee that representatives of women’s organizations, such as the Yukon Status of Women Council, will be invited to participate in this economic review?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I am not sure that any women’s organization, including the Status of Women Council, is able to speak for all Yukon women. I do not think they can.

As I have said, we have appointed the board, and they will carry out their mandate under the law.

Mr. Penikett: The Government Leader has surpassed himself today. He has directly contradicted himself in two successive statements. First of all, he said the Yukon Indian Women’s Association can represent all Yukon women. Then, in the next breath, he said that no organization could represent all Yukon women, which is exactly why the previous government tried to put into law a balance of interests, with the intent that a wide range of interests - including a wide range of views from the women’s community - would be invited to the conference.

Let me ask the Government Leader again. Is it his intention, consistent with the attitude displayed recently on the front bench, to deny representation at this economic review to interests, such as working people, represented by the Federation of Labour, women, represented by the Status of Women Council and other organizations, environmental interests, such as the Yukon Conservation Society and others? Is it his intent to bar such views of people who are critical of the government from the conference?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Most of the organizations he just mentioned are represented on the board to start with. The Council on the Economy and the Environment does not operate in isolation. They solicit opinions from the public at large. Everybody has a chance for input into their reviews.

Question re: Appointments to boards and committees

Mrs. Firth: Since the Yukon Party’s election promise to establish an all-party legislative committee to review appointments to government boards and committees has been shelved, like the promise for an ombudsperson was shelved, I would like to ask the Government Leader about how appointments to boards and committees are made.

When the government Members were in Opposition, they were very vocal and critical of the creation of the position of community liaison coordinator in the Government Leader’s office. In light of this position, why have they done a complete turnaround and appointed someone to this position anyway?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: While we may have appointed someone to that position, the fact remains that we have a lot fewer bodies up there than were there under the previous administration.

Mrs. Firth: These people were extremely opposed to-

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mrs. Firth: “Oh, not me”, he says. These people - the Yukon Party - were opposed to the very concept of this position. In fact, they said that it was ludicrous, and that this person would be in charge of patronage.

Why is it okay to have a person in charge of patronage in his government, but it was not okay for the previous government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I can answer that quite simply. We do not have a person in charge of patronage in our office. While I am on my feet, the first part of her question was asking how we are going about to-

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: That is the person sitting beside you, that is not me. I will say to the Member opposite that the way we select people for the boards is to request names from the public and from organizations at large, and the names are picked from that list.

Mrs. Firth: That is interesting. By the way, just for the public’s information, the individual who said that the person would be in charge of patronage was the present Justice Minister.

Can the Government Leader tell me if this position still carries the same MG-4 classification, which has attached to it a salary range of $53,000 to $69,000?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: While I can just say that the Minister of Justice is not a Yukon Party member, he is the other half of the happy coalition.

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We are accused all the time by the other side of the House of having a happy coalition on this side of the House. I am just re-emphasizing that. Now that it does not fit their questions, they think it is an outrage.

I am not sure of that category but I will bring it back or the Member opposite.

Question re: Community liaison coordinator

Mrs. Firth: I have three words for the Government Leader: ha, ha, ha.

Since the Government Leader mentioned the process, I would like to ask him some more detailed questions about the process of appointing people to boards and committees, particularly with the liaison coordinator, who is going to be responsible for recruiting a few hundred people for boards and committees.

Could the Government Leader stand up today and outline for us just what that process is? How does it work?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The person the Member is talking about certainly is not recruiting the people, as she says. She is keeping a list. We have even run ads in the paper asking for people to sit on boards and committees.

Mrs. Firth: Everyone knows how I really dislike having to disagree with the Government Leader and point out that he is wrong. I checked with the newspapers and they do not routinely advertise for people for boards and committees. However, Yukon Update advertises for them. Yukon Update is a publication of the Yukon Party caucus and - I am coming to my question, Mr. Speaker - in this caucus publication it says that the government is inviting applications from interested persons to sit on boards and committees. Any resident of the Yukon can apply or nominate someone. There are more than 100 boards and committees. For information, contact the community liaison coordinator - the person’s name is in brackets - and there is a phone number.

Who does this publication go out to? Did you get one, Mr. Speaker? I did not get one.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I am really disappointed that the Member for Riverdale did not get one. If she would like to have one we could certainly put her name on the list.

I do not know how many names are on the list right now, but I draw to the Members’ attention that it does not say that criterion for sitting on boards and committees is to be a Yukon Party supporter.

Mrs. Firth: This is only sent out to Yukon Party supporters. Other Yukoners do not receive it.

The Government Leader laughs and this is a serious issue. This was a big election promise that was made.

Why is the Government Leader standing up in the House today saying that everyone in the public is invited to be on boards, when it is obvious that they are not. When is he going to start inviting the public to be on the boards?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Member says how serious a matter this is. It is a very serious matter; it was one of the first motions that we put on the floor of this House and we could not get any cooperation from the Members opposite to vet the appointments to boards.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Members opposite had the opportunity to vet the names and they would not do it.

Question re: Workers’ Compensation, volunteer coverage

Mr. Harding: I remind the Government Leader that we amended their motion to improve it and make it better, and we could not get any cooperation from the government.

I have a question for the Minister.

Speaker: On the same topic?

Mr. Harding: Not quite, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister responsible for Workers’ Compensation.

At the request of the Yukon government, the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Board deemed several classes of people to be workers for the purposes of workers’ compensation, including people doing community service work, students on work training and people volunteering their services to the government. Essentially, government volunteers are now viewed as workers by the Workers’ Compensation Board.

When volunteers of the government are deemed to be workers, their right to sue the government in the event of an injury is taken away. For example, a parent who might be working on a school trip and gets injured no longer has the right to sue the government for negligence, if in fact there was negligence. Is the government advising all of their volunteers that their right to sue the government if they are injured has now been taken away?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: That change in regulations was made and put in by the board and the president of the board.

Mr. Harding: The Minister should become more familiar with this act. Time and time again, we are seeing problems with the health and safety review and the management of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Minister does have authority, and this particular order and request was done by the board at the request of the government. That is the only way it can be done.

Will the Minister please advise whether the board order, done at the request of the government, was costed by an actuary and what kind of pressure it would bear on the compensation fund? We had a $3 million increase in that fund last year.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: Ever since I got into Workers’ Compensation and the new rules, we have had a number of lawyers, who all have a different opinion. We now have another lawyer over here telling me something else. I wish these lawyers would get together and make up their minds what it is. At times, it is a real problem knowing exactly where they are going with the new legislation.

I accept the ruling of the board, and we have rescinded the two orders-in-council we had, so the ruling of the board would be in effect.

Mr. Harding: Since the Minister does not understand what is in the act, let me read it to him. The act says, “Despite any other provision of this act, the board may, upon the application of an employer,” which is the government, “and subject to any conditions that it may establish, deem the following persons to be workers of that employer ...” That is what they did, and that is what I mentioned earlier.

Does the Minister believe that volunteers are best insured through the workers’ compensation system, rather than through private liability insurance?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I find it funny that the individual, who is always kicking me around, and saying that I do not help any employee, now that I am trying to protect them, he goes to the other side of the fence.

Yes, I believe they should be protected under workers’ compensation.

Question re: Workers’ Compensation, volunteer coverage

Mr. Harding: The Minister is not helping anybody with this, if he is not telling them clearly what has been done. Now, those volunteers lose their right to sue the government for negligence. Not only that, if they ever perform any negligent act, the people who are hurt by it cannot even sue them any more, because we are now under the workers’ compensation system, rather than through private liability insurance.

Can the Minister tell us what consultation the government had with industry and labour on this issue, before they requested the board to do it?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: It certainly is peculiar that now all of a sudden we want to go back into private business and private liability. It is probably just being pointed out for the government. There are a lot of volunteers who work for other associations and should be covered the same way.

Mr. Harding: I could not understand the answer the Minister just gave. What I am asking is, now that they have taken this policy to the board, made a request and had it granted to consider all these volunteers as workers and now cover them under the workers’ compensation system, as opposed to private liability, can he tell us what consultation with business and labour did they carry out to formulate this request and have it granted by the board?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I will take that under advisement and find out from the board.

Mr. Harding: Time and time again we are finding that the government really does not know what is going on with respect to policy. They do not know who is running the ship on the security checks policy, they could not answer us; on the wolf plan, they do not know who is preparing draft submissions to Cabinet; on the occupational health and safety review, they are trying to claim it was a board decision. Can the government tell us why they would undertake these policies, if it is they who are doing it, and then not be able to stand up in this Legislature and tell us the reason why?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: It was simply to add the volunteer workers to other workers for workers’ compensation coverage.

Question re: Contracts, local bid preference

Mr. McDonald: I have a question for the Government Leader. There has been some discussion in the Legislature about the government’s contracting policy and about whether the government intended to give Yukon contractors a bid preference when bidding on government contracts. Can the Government Leader give us a definitive answer whether such a preference will be given?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Member is aware of the desire in the provinces for the removal of interprovincial trade barriers to ensure the free movement of goods and people. We are part of that. But, because we are in the north, we can - and it was approved by the western premiers - if the need arises, give some preferential treatment to our contractors in the north.

Mr. McDonald: I did not ask that question but I thank the Minister for his answer. I will get around to that question in a couple of days.

Is it the government’s intention to give Yukon contractors a bid preference? They currently do not have one. Is it the government’s intention to give them one?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe our contractors, for the most part, can compete with contractors throughout the world, and I believe we want a level playing field for everybody. But, if the need arises, we have the ability to give them some preference and we will use that if the need arises.

Mr. McDonald: Has the need arisen for a bid preference for government contractors? I ask the question because Government Services is intending to provide a bid preference to Yukon contractors.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe in the year we have been in office that almost 90 percent, 88 percent or something, of contracts were won by local firms so I do not believe there is a need at this point.

Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation, major industrial consumers

Mr. Cable: I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation. On December 15 of last year, the Minister informed the House that he expected to have a policy in place relating to pricing of electricity for major industrial consumers, prior to the expiry of the Curragh contract, and that contract expired in March of this year. Again, in March, he informed the House that the policy would not be in place for at least three months, and that is some nine months ago. This policy is a major element in the development of the Carmacks mineral deposits.

Could the Minister give the House, at this time, a definitive date on the completion of this policy initiative?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: This policy is currently being developed, with the lead roles being played by the Department of Economic Development. Although the corporation is involved, it has lots of irons in the fire right now, what with all the bad investments we are trying to get rid of, including the chipper that the good Member opposite was responsible for buying when he was president of the corporation.

Mr. Cable: The Minister should go back and check the minutes of his corporation. He will find that is not the case - but a good try, anyway.

Jack’s chipper - that has a nice ring to it, does it not?

On December 15, the Minister indicated that he was going to bring forth a comprehensive energy policy within one year. Could we have his advice as to the status of that policy?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: The government will be coming forward shortly with the industrial policy on energy rates. We are also in the process of developing an IPP policy - an independent power producer policy - and, in terms of overall policy, it will be segmental. We do not intend to have a grandiose document full of principles and philosophy that signifies absolutely nothing to the real world.

Mr. Cable: That answer signifies absolutely nothing. I was asking the date; “shortly” is a good try, but that has been the same answer for about a year now.

The Minister, in response to a question that I asked on April 13, indicated that public participation would be invited. I asked that question and he said, “I am sure there will be.”

In view of the fact that this policy is going to be in place shortly, what public participation does he anticipate in this small interval?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: As I have already mentioned to the Minister, it is not my department that is developing the industrial energy policy, it is Economic Development. Perhaps the Member could direct his question to that Minister.

Question re: Contracts, local bid preference

Mr. McDonald: Everybody is cutting each other loose on the other side.

I have a question for either the Government Leader or the Minister responsible for Government Services. The Minister for Government Services indicated that in certain circumstances the government would entertain bypassing the low bidder, if that low bidder was bidding from outside of the territory and competing with a local bidder.

Could the Minister indicate under what precise circumstances Cabinet would entertain bypassing the low bidder?

Hon. Mr. Devries: If the economic circumstances in the area indicated that there was a real need for Yukon employment, and if, in the bid submission, the outside bidder could not show that they were going to hire a large number of Yukoners, we would make that decision based on those economic circumstances. However, the bid would have to be very close as far as dollar amounts go.

Mr. McDonald: The Minister indicated that if the outside bidder did not promise to hire a significant number of Yukoners, then that bid might be bypassed. Is the Minister aware that decision is contrary to the Charter of Rights?

Hon. Mr. Devries: From the information that I have, the process that they are using would have to be indicated in the tender and if this circumstance happened, we would have that option. I understand that that is legal.

Mr. McDonald: I invite the Minister to obtain new legal advice on this matter very quickly.

We discussed the court reporting contract last spring and the low bidder was accepted and was from outside, and there was a wildlife synopsis contract for Renewable Resources where I think the difference in contract price between the local and outside bidder was $68, or something, and yet the local bidder was bypassed. Why, in those particular cases, did the government feel that it was not appropriate to bypass the low bidder and accept the Yukon bid?

Hon. Mr. Devries: There could be a wide range of circumstances surrounding that decision. I cannot get into that on my feet, because I would have to know the circumstances behind those decisions.

Question re: Contracts, local bid preference

Mr. McDonald: The government Minister is indicating that there were a wide range of circumstances that may permit the Cabinet to subjectively determine whether or not a low bid will be bypassed. Can the Minister indicate to us whether or not he is communicating with any potential bidder on government projects anywhere in western Canada, who may be entertaining submitting a bid on Yukon government contracts, that they may be arbitrarily bypassed at any time based on a wide range of factors that the Cabinet might deem appropriate at any given time?

Hon. Mr. Devries: This discussion is very preliminary in that this issue has only recently come up. Up to this point, all the contracts have been awarded to the lowest bidder, unless it was an evaluation, or something of that nature.

Mr. McDonald: The Minister indicates that this policy is in the preliminary stage, yet the Government Services strategic plan indicates very clearly what it intends to do, and the Minister has indicated very clearly what they intend to do. One of the reasons we are passing the capital budget now is so that potential bidders can understand what the government projects are and plan accordingly. Can the Minister tell us whether or not he is going to be communicating with the contracting industry that the process for determining whether or not the low bid is going to be accepted may be subject to a very subjective judgment by the Cabinet at any time?

Hon. Mr. Devries: As I had mentioned just a few days ago, the contract regulations will be going under review very shortly and that will be addressed at that time, and there will be public consultation.

Mr. McDonald: This is really, really quite scary at this point because the Minister has to understand that the contracting community needs to have some certainty about what the rules are and the Minister, almost every day, is introducing new rules or new nuances to the contracting regulations that were not anticipated.

Given that the government’s strategic plan states clearly that they are going to, as they call it, reintroduce the concept of accepting the low bidder, how does that jibe with the statements made by the Minister that the low bidder may be bypassed based on any number of wide-ranging circumstances that the Cabinet considers to be pertinent at any particular time?

Hon. Mr. Devries: Again, and I mentioned this earlier, there are many ways, other than just going with the lowest bid, to ensure that Yukon contractors get the contracts. Contracts can be divided up so that it would perhaps be uneconomical for someone from outside to come in. There are a lot of ways it can be done. It does not necessarily have to be just in the bidding process.

Speaker: Time for Question Period has now lapsed.

We will proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker: Government bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 42: Second Reading - continued

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 42, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Phelps - adjourned debate.

Ms. Commodore: I am not sure whether or not my voice will allow me to stand here for three hours again, as I did yesterday, but I do have some things that I would like to add to what I said yesterday.

Yesterday, when the Minister spoke in second reading about the bill and the reasons why he was repealing it, he mentioned the fact that we did not accept one recommendation from the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment and that is true, but I mentioned yesterday the reasons why we chose not to agree to that recommendation regarding section 50.

The other thing I did not mention is that, while we were in Committee of the Whole and going over all of the clauses, certain amendments were suggested by the Opposition at that time, to which we agreed, but that was never mentioned. We did take into consideration many other positions they had and decided to make changes to the bill.

That was never mentioned by the Minister. The other thing that I wanted to comment on was that in the second reading speech he talked about what we were going to say and what we were going to be doing on this side of the House. One of the things that he said, and I will repeat it, was, “given the fact that it is not law and we intend to appeal it - but I think he meant repeal - the stuff that we are bound to hear about principles and how the NDP stands for the workers rings hollow to the ears of the public and to us on this side of the House”.

I will agree that it rings hollow to people on that side of the House because, judging by their actions in regard to this bill, anything to do with workers rings hollow in their ears. I want to make that very clear because the actions speak louder than words.

He also said, “I want to stress that their noble sentiments are going to be undermined by the shallowness of their actions”. I want to say that no action in regard to amending a bill to make it more progressive is very shallow on his part. For him to go through the actions of repealing it, when he does not have to, is very shallow in itself.

I do not intend to stand here very long today, but I would like to just cover some of the background of the kind of things that happened throughout the whole process that started on November 19, 1991 - and has not yet ended - and was assented to in the House on June 1.

On November 19, the options paper was released to the public. I mentioned yesterday what happened and how many of those papers went out. I want to talk about this because I want to let the public know that it was not an easy process that we had to go through. What it did at that time, and I remember introducing it through a ministerial statement in the House at the same time they went out.

Right away there was a lot of publicity about it and it was picked up by all the media. The next day the Whitehorse Star talked about changes to the act that we were proposing, when in fact it was not changes that we were proposing, it was options that we wanted people to look at and to respond to. It was mentioned that it was a long shopping list for things that employees would like, and may get. That was not the only thing that was in it; we took into consideration the employers’ views as well.

In short order there was much opposition to it from the Chamber of Commerce, which was outraged at everything that was taking place. The president, I believe, of the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce made negative comments about the option paper. That kind of negative publicity and comments were made for many weeks. The Chamber of Commerce asked that we scrap the bill and they continued to let us know that they disagreed with it.

On January 21, the critic for Justice at that time, who was a Member for Riverdale North, was calling on the government to give Yukoners more time, which we did. Of course, we never said that the input would stop at a certain date.

On January 23, Mr. Gallup, who is a city councillor, asked the City of Whitehorse to oppose the Employment Standards Act. There was a move in the public to oppose everything that was in the bill.

I mentioned yesterday that if people have strong beliefs in something, they will work as hard as they can to try to make those changes. We were both trying to make changes, but in different ways.

In February, the Association of Yukon Communities asked us to delay the labour laws.

Curragh then wrote a letter to the government about the effect on that company if the act was proclaimed. On the same day, February 7, the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce and the Association of Yukon Communities asked for input. They were given the opportunity to make all of their concerns known.

There was an editorial on February 10 letting the public know that business was rebelling against the act. It was very clear at the time that the business sector, at least some of them - not all of them, and I want to make that very clear - did not want us to go ahead with the bill.

Finally, someone came out and supported us. I know that the Minister will not think that this is much support, but the Yukon Building and Construction Trades Council came out in support of the bill.

I spoke yesterday about a meeting that was called by the Member for Riverdale North, who was the critic at that time, to invite me to his Tory meeting.

My response at the time was that I did not attend Tory meetings, and probably never will. I was criticized by the Whitehorse Star for not going to it. That is fine. I took that as I always take things from the Whitehorse Star. The business sector continued to ask me to scrap the review without as much as a thought. Of course, I could not do that.

Then, we were applauded by another labour group for following through with what we were doing. That added some support to it. The people who were opposed to it continued to want input.

A letter was written to the Whitehorse Star by a citizen, saying that businesses must pay adequate wages, so there was support in favour of the review and the amendments we might have been looking at at that time.

As a result of all the information that came in, and as a result of the workbook, we did introduce the amendment on February 27. That was three months later. Once the amendments were released, there was more opposition to it. A committee was struck to look at the amendments and, on February 28, right away, pay equity was dropped from the draft. It was suggested that it would be covered under the Yukon Human Rights Act. Everybody reported that pay equity had been dropped from the act - the Yukon News, CHON/FM, the Whitehorse Star. Then, there was more opposition from the Chamber of Commerce to the labour act. They kept calling it the labour act and, I suppose, in a way, that is what it is.

There was some remark from Doug Gallup, one of the city councillors, about people who had never held real jobs in their lives. That outraged many people who have held real jobs in their lives. He was talking about a wish list for those people who were responding to the options paper, and who had never held a real job in their lives. That kind of an attitude was very open at that time. I do not know what they consider to be a real job, just like I do not know what they consider to be a real Yukoner.

More letters of support started to come in. Then, on March 4, someone from the business sector spoke in favour of the bill, because he knew a lot of employers who did not pay their employees well enough and did not give them the same kind of benefits that he, and many other business owners, gave to their employees.

On March 24, 1992, we called a public meeting so that everyone could attend. As one could expect from the Whitehorse Star, it was reported that the labour bill tea party turned angry. I would not have expected anything different from the reporter at that time, because we know the kind of reporting that happens. At that time, the committee was still looking at the draft act, and of course they were at the public meeting that night. There were a lot of people there and they did have a lot of concerns that I listened to, as I have said before. Shortly after that, the business people walked out. Shortly after the business people quit, on March 30, six days later, the Member for Watson Lake asked for my resignation, but, of course, I did not resign.

Shortly after that, because we had to deal with the act, we appointed the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment to review the draft act. Then there was some talk about biased and unbiased coverage from different people who were sending letters to the editor saying that the reporting of the matter was not handled in the proper manner. Someone wrote a letter to the Whitehorse Star saying, “Put children first”. She was speaking in regard to parental leave and how that would benefit families. Someone called in and criticized the two people who resigned.

On April 2, the business people intensified their anti-labour bill campaign, headed by one person, and that continued throughout.

I think it was a good day when the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment looked at the recommendations and began to come up with some good amendments.

There was some response to the criticism about biased reporting in the Whitehorse Star. On April 8, the Chamber of Commerce advised that they were trying to enlist more people in its campaign against changes proposed to the Employment Standards Act, and they campaigned heavily to oppose it. They were supported during this time by the Member for Riverdale North and other people, who opposed better working conditions for workers.

On April 8, a director of the Chamber of Commerce said that bereavement leave is clearly discriminatory and does not allow for other beliefs - “singling out one group of people is unacceptable”. The director was referring to potlatches that aboriginal people attend. I do not think that was a very popular belief, because I know that a lot of people were supporting that proposed amendment.

On April 8, the chamber continued to campaign against the bill.

Then, there was a letter in the Yukon News, written by Ian Foulds, the man who would be the leader of the Yukon Party at that time, who was initiating a movement to defeat the Employment Standards Act, stating that the government was “attempting to legislate oppression of our freedom to offer and accept employment upon mutually agreed to conditions”.

The Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment was given a deadline of May 1 to submit recommendations.

On April 22, a person wrote a letter to the Yukon News, stating “how refreshing it is, for a change, to hear from fair-minded business people who believe that treating staff to a fair wage reflective of the economic times, which will allow these employees to live with dignity, and it is sad that governments have to legislate to ensure that working people can live with pride and dignity”.

There was some more support from the postal workers, which was good, and there was a demonstration outside this building. The Federation of Labour met and presented some resolutions to the floor, asking for stronger amendments. I am reading this so people can read the history of the Yukon and see how difficult it is to make changes. On one hand, there is a group of people strongly opposing minor changes to the act, and then you have other people who believe in stronger laws. You are working and trying to please a lot of people, while trying to be fair at the same time.

On May 12, the chamber decided that they liked the review that was going on and that the Employment Standards Act was a fair compromise. They spoke on the recommendations that were coming out of the review that was being done by the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment.

On May 13, I introduced the amendments into the House for first reading.

On May 15, Lois Pope from the Yukon Federation of Labour stated, “’Legislation can protect people who do not have a lot of influence’; she was glad Joe ...” - we have both changed our names since then - “... has persevered with the much-needed legislation.

Then, on May 15, the Yukon Party urged us to stall the bill.

On May 27, the Member for Porter Creek North criticized me for picking and choosing what I did and did not like from the YCEE report - and I would like to remind the House that we did not agree to only one section. He accused us of having no intention of listening to the committee on the more controversial items. Well, we listened to every one except one, and it was mentioned yesterday by the Minister when he made his speech in second reading. There was a lot of opposition to it, but there was an equal amount of support for it.

On June 1, the bill was passed in this House and assented to on June 2.

That is a brief history of that bill.

When we introduced the bill, we were presenting to this House the first major amendments to the Employment Standards Act since it had come into effect on January 1, 1985. At that time, it included requirements such as payment of overtime, general holiday pay and vacation pay, which had been part of its predecessor, the Labour Standards Ordinance. I do not know if many people remember the Labour Standards Ordinance, but if you think this bill is outdated, that one was really labour law from the Dark Ages. It also, at the time, introduced such measures as maternity leave and equal pay for similar work, as I mentioned yesterday, and the notice of termination, or pay in lieu of notice, and it set out in a certificate system both a method of collecting wages and a means of appealing decisions. This new certificate system reduced the need for lengthy and expensive court proceedings. When these changes were put into effect, an information campaign was implemented to educate both employers and employees as to their legal rights and obligations.

In 1989, when I was a Minister, a number of amendments to the act were passed. These amendments helped to simplify the wage claim process and to clarify sections that were frequently misinterpreted.

There were some new measures introduced, such as those pertaining to associated corporations.

The amendments made in 1989 corrected a number of problem areas in the act and their scope was relatively limited. When the amendments were passed in the House, I informed the Members of the House, as the Minister, that the department would be conducting a full review of the act in the near future. That is exactly what happened.

From 1989 onward, we heard from employers and employees alike that parts of the act were either confusing, inflexible or inadequate, given the realities of the Yukon workplace. We heard that over and over again, and I talked about it yesterday, so I will not go into that in detail because I did mention it.

Developments in legislation and in other jurisdictions and related areas of social policy also pointed out the need for a full review of the Employment Standards Act. For instance, major changes to the federal Unemployment Insurance Act, as I mentioned yesterday, in 1990, permitted qualified employees to collect up to 15 weeks of unemployment insurance while on parental leave. Those provisions now apply to both male and female, birth and adoptive parents, alike.

Under the Unemployment Insurance Act, employees were able to receive income support to stay home with their children during restrictive time periods, yet they had no legal guarantee under the Employment Standards Act that their jobs would be protected during their absence. This is still the case. It was the case then and still is the case today. I would have thought that after a year at least some of those amendments would have been put into law.

At that time, there was a survey made of legislation right across the country. For some of the standards, the level of protection provided by the Yukon legislation to employees was among the lowest in the country. Of course, nothing has happened to improve that since then.

The act’s vacation pay and termination provisions were among the lowest in Canada. It also became clear that there were some provisions that could adversely affect employees that were unique to the Yukon. This is not found in employment standards legislation anywhere else in Canada. For example, the Employment Standards Act contains a provision that could lead to an employee forfeiting one week’s wages for failing to give the required notice of termination. I pointed that out over and over again yesterday, and I speak again about it today because it was one of the really bad sections that we felt had to be removed.

All the information we received during inquiries from across the country led us to plan a comprehensive review of the Employment Standards Act. That was done by the release of Reviewing the Ground Rules for the Yukon Workplace. It was distributed for public comment. As I mentioned yesterday, and read part of, it included a summary of the provisions of the current act, comparing it to pieces of legislation in other parts of Canada. It also included 73 options that could be considered when reviewing the act.

We wanted to know how the public felt, what needed to be changed, and what possibly needed to be taken out, so we could get a better idea about what Yukoners wanted to see in terms of changes to the Employment Standards Act.

When that review was complete, the draft amendments to the act were given to the general public for discussion. They were based on all the information we had received, either through the card that was at the back of the book, or through written and oral submissions. There were a lot of written submissions. They came to my office, and I was very pleased to see them. They were in addition to comments from the workbook. People were really concerned and interested in what we were trying to do.

The opinions expressed in the response cards enclosed in the workbook were also part of that. For example, the workbook discussed options for dealing with pay equity. Responses received indicated that pay equity should not be included in the Employment Standards Act. Therefore, it was not included in the final bill, because it was decided it was covered under the Human Rights Act. As you will remember, that act was also very difficult to put through this House, for many reasons, perhaps for the same reasons the opposition to the Employment Standards Act occurred.

As I mentioned, it was referred to the advisory committee and right away it was agreed that some things would be removed from it. A number of issues were considered and it was important to ensure that all draft amendments were considered in-depth by parties outside of the government.

The draft amendments were referred to the Council on the Economy and the Environment after the break-up of the advisory committee. That council included business and labour organizations, First Nations, women’s organizations, and groups concerned with the environment and natural resources. They were all represented on that body.

The council considered the submissions made by groups and individuals. Press clippings and comments of the advisory committee were available, together with the responses from the different groups. They considered the draft act and all of the press that went along with it.

The council looked at the philosophy of the act and reviewed the amendments on a clause-by-clause basis before council made its recommendation to Cabinet. It was not something that they took lightly; they took a lot of things into consideration when they reviewed it, before they made their final recommendations to the Cabinet of the day.

The council’s report, dated April 30, reflects that they were able to reach consensus on so many issues. Their hard work produced a document, of which their recommendations formed the basis of the draft act. That was Bill No. 13, which was introduced, debated and passed in this House.

The only thing that I can say is that all of the things mentioned and all of the people who took part in the process were completely ignored by this progressive government that we have in power right now, because they have no consideration for workers.

The council report stated that in amending the act, the government must balance the need for fair and reasonable employment standards that parallel those in the rest of Canada with the demands of current, local, regional and global economic conditions.

This was a term that kept coming out all the time. It cautioned against including “leading edge” proposals in the act, due to the fragility of the Yukon economy. I was really surprised how often that term “leading edge” came up in any discussions we were having. When you look at the act, and you look at the kind of things that were in it, I would swear that a lot of those things were not on the leading edge. They were much more progressive than the act is right now, but there seemed to be a big concern out there.

They also stressed the need for flexibility in arrangements and benefits, and expressed concern regarding the dangers of over-regulating. These were good concerns, and their recommendations were done in a responsible manner.

The legislation, Bill No. 13, as it was presented in the House at that time, reflected a balance of interests - there is no question about it. It was a balance between the rights and the needs of employees, and the ability of employers to meet those needs. The amendments were fair and reasonable, and would have helped to provide a more equitable working relationship between employers and employees. I do not know how these people missed out on the things that were in the act that would have been helpful to both employees and employers.

I will discuss, right now, some of the things from the bill that was tabled, and assented to, in the House. A significant number of Yukon employees are employed in positions where the employers base the terms and conditions of their employment on the minimum standards that must be granted according to the law. Some of the amendments, such as increased vacation leave and pay, and increased notice of termination, were proposed with specifically those employees in mind. The amendments that introduced parental leave would have benefited both employees and employers.

In many Yukon families, both parents work to provide financial support for their households, and parental leave would have insured that they would have jobs to return to following the important period during which they stay at home to care for their children.

I mentioned that yesterday. I talked about job security in the workforce, and that is all we were looking for in that part of the bill, when we chose to include it. Employers would be assured of retaining experienced employees by having them return to work after such periods of leave. Right now, there is no guarantee of that. Specific guidelines regarding the leave would have helped to ensure that employers were aware of their options should an employee fail to return to work.

Other amendments, such as provisions for paid time off in lieu of overtime, were designed to give employers and employees more flexibility. We kept talking about the employers and how they were included in this act, how they could define the act and how it would be more helpful to them. In regard to overtime, hours worked during their employer’s busy season could be paid out to employees during less busy times of the year. This would have made it easier for employers to meet payroll commitments and would have permitted employees to have paid time off.

Many of the amendments would have changed the way employers and employees exercise their legal rights and obligations. The extensions to the time required to pay wages would have made it easier for employers to pay employees within the time allotted by law; employees would have been required to assume more of the onus in acting on their complaints, as the time limit for filing wages complaints would have been reduced from one year to six months.

In a situation that is not an emergency, employees would have obtained the right to refuse to work extra hours if their employers had not given them sufficient notice of the requirement to work. And that was controversial.

While this amendment would have given employees new rights, it did not penalize employers whose employees chose to work the extra hours.

More amendments to provisions concerning the fair wage schedule would have permitted the making of regulations concerning the schedule’s enforcement administration. I talked about that yesterday. The current section in the act, which establishes a fair wage schedule and defines its application, was re-written to clarify which government construction contracts are subject to the schedule. I know how the Member feels about the fair wage schedule. I know how he feels about workers, and I think that if he had reviewed the amendments very carefully, he would have seen a long list of amendments that would have clarified that provision, because it took up probably a whole page in the amendments to the act.

Additions were made to the penalties that could be levied against employers who are convicted of repeat offences under section 96, the fair wage rates. This would have strengthened the enforcement of the fair wage schedule on government contracts.

In addition to the provisions included in the amendments, Bill No. 13 would have repealed section 50, as I mentioned before. That section was a very important part of the amendment and one we got criticized for for not listening to the recommendations of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment about it. Section 50 states that employees can forfeit one week’s wages if they fail to give written notice that they are quitting. The council recommended retaining this provision. It recognized the importance of balancing the penalties imposed on employers who dismissed their employees with notice provisions relating to employees. They also recognized that there are sections in the act that protect the employees. For example, section 50 does give the director the discretion to return the wages to the employee under certain circumstances. Despite these protections, we were of the opinion that section 50 is unfair to employees.

We believe that today. Employees can ill afford the cost of such a penalty, so we were asking that this section be repealed. Once again, that was the only section that we disagreed with in all the recommendations that were made.

In addition, we would have removed a section of the act that excluded the Government of the Yukon from the provisions of the act. This inclusion would require that unions be consulted as well as to review internal policies and procedures and other legislation that affected employees. That would not have come into effect until January 1995.

At that time, the amendments recognized that employers in the Yukon, by and large, are honest citizens who treat their employees fairly. That is a given. We felt that that those protective measures were necessary. I mentioned yesterday the amount of inquiries that were made to labour services on behalf of employees. In the year that this bill was introduced - the fiscal year 1991-92 - 243 wage claims were opened, about $200,000 in wages collected, and 20 certificates for wages issued against employers were also filed in Supreme Court during that year.

I do not have an up-to-date list of things that are before the courts right now, but I do know that the statistics are much higher.

The employment relationship is not always an equal one. Employers hold the power to hire and fire. They hold the power to set wages and determine how and when work will be performed. Employees bring with them the skills to do the job required by the employer. Without legislated standards, many employees would have no power with which to ask for, and receive, such basic payments as overtime wages and general holiday pay.

We were proud of the legislation we introduced in the House, because it contained extensive amendments. We felt it would have contributed to a fair and equitable workplace, and would have gone a long way toward more clearly defining the rights and obligations of both parties in the partnership that makes up the employment relationship.

I read some of the history of the act, and how it happened that we came forward with that Bill No. 13 in this House. I wanted to stress, once again, that it was a lot of hard work. We felt very strongly about it. I do not think that anything that is being said today should be taken lightly.

When the Minister says that anything we say in this House about principles, and our party’s stand for workers, rings hollow in his ears it does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I know for sure that it does not ring hollow in the ears of the public. It does not, because there are many workers who would have been affected by the amendments for better working conditions. Because the Minister has chosen to continue with the old act and not do anything with the amendments right now, I take that as a step backward.

The bill is eight years old and needs many changes to it. The Minister and his happy coalition have chosen to do nothing. They have had a year to review the bill and, up to this time, the only thing that they have chosen to do is repeal the act, which is not even law yet. The Minister has no legal obligation to repeal the bill.

The Minister told the media that he wanted the public to understand the rules of the workplace. I think the Minister and his happy coalition caucus may be the ones who are having trouble understanding that hard-working people may actually want a few improvements to the workplace, and employers do, as well.

As I mentioned yesterday, there were many things in the act that people new to the Yukon, and even people who have been in the Yukon for some time, did not understand, and they needed much clarification about situations that occur in the workplace.

I am not sure why the Minister chose to bring this bill into the House today. I know that he is going to come back in his closing remarks and respond to all the comments that are made by Members on this side of the House. I hope that the Minister can be a little bit more convincing in his closing remarks than he was in his opening remarks in second reading. As far as I am concerned, his remarks were nothing but rhetoric.

The fact that the Minister brought this bill to the House brings back old memories about why the act was not proclaimed.

The act was not proclaimed prior to the election, and the Minister is making some little comment under his breath. I am not sure what it is, but it would not have been that we were setting a precedent. There were other bills in other parts of Canada that had been proclaimed with the change of new government. Unfortunately, the person who could have proclaimed the act happened to be a friend of the Minister.

I have to say that I was so very disappointed in that gentleman, because I did have a lot of respect for him. I think that bringing this bill to the House and repealing it gives the Minister an opportunity to re-visit the past and continue his NDP bashing, because he simply has nothing more to offer the public.

They really do not have anything more to offer the public. We have been sitting in this House for three weeks, and it becomes clearer every single day that nothing is happening. It is not happening in regard to the economy. They are talking about going out and spending money on consultation to find out whether or not we should introduce video lottery terminals in hotels of their friends so they can make money.

I hope that they have read their bill, but we know that it has been determined that it will have a really negative effect on the people in the Yukon who are having to live from payday to payday on a minimum wage - people who are being supported by Health and Social Services, because they cannot afford to live from payday to payday. I really would like to know how much is coming out of the budget to pay those lower income people. They are not getting paid enough to live from payday to payday, so they have to go to Health and Social Services. They have to ask for more money to get by. I would suggest that his department is subsidizing some of those businesses just by doing that, because they are not getting enough in their wages to get by.

The Minister is trying to tie this bill in with unions. I do not know why he and his happy coalition think that, by repealing this bill, they want the public to somehow know that it will affect those unionized workers. I think that it could be another reason to get back at the workers, whom they are not supporting anyhow, as a government.

He said that he was going to review the act and then decide what it was they were going to do. As I mentioned just minutes ago, they have had a whole year to review it, and finally, out of the blue, they chose to repeal it. After much review, I would have expected that he would have been very honest with the workers and would have introduced amendments to the act that would have improved working conditions for them. However, he has decided, once again, to do absolutely nothing.

I mentioned yesterday in my opening speech that it is not the Members on that side of the House who are suffering any hardships as a result of the outdated act. The people who are sitting on that side have no idea about the inequality in the workforce and the act that forces them to keep working in a situation that is not equal. It is the people earning a low income - chambermaids, servers, clerks, labourers, taxi drivers, gas jockeys, and a number of others - who do not have anyone to protect their interests. It has been obvious that the Members who are in government are not here to speak on behalf of those people. There has been no indication whatsoever, in anything in the past or the present, that tells us that they are here to speak on behalf of those workers.

The Minister has much criticism of our party for speaking on behalf of the workers. He made a comment about our standing up and saying, workers of the world, unite. I know he is a well-educated man who makes a good salary and has probably got a lot of private interests, as well as his own home. He does not seem to care about those people - about the workers of the world, or about the workers of the Yukon. He makes comments about our speaking on behalf of them, as if it were something that we should not do. I would like to know what he has against the workers. I would like to know why no one on that side of the House will talk about the workers of the Yukon; why no one on that side of the House will be more progressive about the workers of the Yukon.

By repealing the act, they are doing to hard-working people just what they have done to the economy - and we all know what is happening with the economy. Every time they answer questions in the House, they pretend and say what great friends they are of the First Nations people, yet the very first thing they did was to cancel Taga Ku. Then, to appease the Champagne/Aishihik Band, they turned around and went ahead with their plan to kill wolves. That was only to appease the band, because they had taken away one project that would have benefited them. They are not fooling anyone - I know that. They are not fooling those people, and they are not fooling the workers of the Yukon.

They have already brought in higher taxes and, not too long ago, they magically came up with $7 million. They took some of that money out of road projects to put back into other road projects, and some they took out of housing to put back into other housing projects. Magically, they came up with $7 million, but I think about 75 percent of that is cost shared.

What they are doing by repealing this bill, by not making any progressive changes, is making sure that people who are getting a lower wage will continue to get a lower wage, and will guarantee that they will continue to come to the Minister of Health and Social Services’ office to be subsidized so that they can live from payday to payday.

Everyone, including government workers, knows that they are an anti-worker government. They cannot guarantee job security for their workers right now. The Government Leader will not stand up in this House and he will not look into the camera when it is on him to tell the people out there what he is doing, because he is ashamed. And he should be. He should be very ashamed.

It will be a happy day for the happy coalition when this bill is approved in this House - and it will be, because I know they will have support from Members on this side of the House. But it is not going to be a happy day for those workers. It is not going to be a happy day for those workers who have to live under the existing law, the law that should have been changed and could have been changed a year ago, and those are the people I feel sorry for. I know they do not consider the people who work in their riding as people they should represent because nothing in the past has ever indicated that that is the case.

I know people on this side of the House, in our party at least, support progressive changes, changes that are equal to the employer and to the employee. That is what the amendments would have done - the act that the Member is repealing and does not have to.

I have probably talked long enough on this. It has been my pleasure to be able to stand here and speak on this bill, because I disagree with what he is doing. It is a step backwards, but everything that this new government has done has been a step backwards, so it is no surprise. The Member for Riverdale North is waiting to stand up to say his piece and I am sure he has a lot to say, but so do we. There will be other people from this side of the House who will be speaking on this bill.

I think it is a disgrace. They are taking a step backwards and it just proves that the Yukon is living in the Dark Ages. We are going back in history and are living under a law right now that could have been changed - and it could have been changed with dignity for workers, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I certainly do not intend to speak as long as the Member for Whitehorse Centre has spoken, but I do think that there are some things I should get on the record.

I listened to the speech from the Member for Whitehorse Centre. I think we should label the Member’s speech the triple five speech, the 555 speech. If you look at it, the speech was five hours long. It is about a five-minute walk across the road to the Commissioner’s office, and they had five months to walk five minutes, and they could not make it.

I would believe what the Member opposite said about the importance of this issue to the people and the workers of the Yukon if they had shown how important it was by actually taking that five-minute walk up the street after the bill was declared.

One has to really wonder what the previous administration’s motives were when they could not walk up the street. That Member could have crawled on her hands and knees to the Commissioner’s office. She could have gone by way of Old Crow and taken a Yukon tour. She could have toured all of Canada in five months and still made it to the Commissioner’s office before the election was called but, obviously, they had other things in mind.

The Employment Standards Act is an important piece of legislation. I do not think it is something that should be amended hastily. The previous government carried on a consultation process, and then only listened to those they wanted to listen to. That was unfortunate.

I think that an employment standards act has to be fair to the employees, but it also has to be fair to the employer because, without employers, there are no employees. In fact, I would suggest that, if that act would have been passed in the form it was written by the previous government, the businesses in this community would have had increased hardships. In the last year, with the downturn in the economy, it would have been very difficult for some of those businesses to survive under some of the rules that were in that agreement.

It was obvious to many people that that particular piece of legislation was driven by unions. It was a union contract that was virtually written into our employment standards legislation. That is not the avenue that should be pursued. If companies want to unionize, they should do it on their own, and they should do it when the employees agree to do it, and not bring in legislation from the Government of the Yukon, directing everyone to accept a union contract.

I am not going to speak all that long, because I think this is an important issue. I think the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes is doing the right thing by repealing this legislation and coming back in the spring with new legislation to amend the Employment Standards Act, and I will be supporting this motion put forward by that Member.

Mr. Harding: I am pleased to have this opportunity to enter into this debate about repealing the proposed amendments to the Employment Standards Act. I do have some important comments to make that should be said regarding the action taken by the new government.

I do not intend, for the benefit of the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, to give a workers-of-the-world-unite speech, nor do I intend to give a businesses-of-the-world-unite speech for the common cause and the good of all. I do not intend to wrap a lot of rhetoric around my comments. I do think that it is important to point out some of the things that this act was designed to do to help people with quite a low level of voice in this territory - people who do not really have as sophisticated lobbying organizations as some of the other organizations, such as the Chamber of Mines, the Yukon or Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce or the Yukon Federation of Labour. Some of these organizations have a much better organized voice. The Employment Standards Act was a courageous piece of legislation to try and help those people when it is quite well known that those people have a lot of trouble in getting their opinions out and getting their voices heard.

I do not think that this necessarily equates to socialist dogma, as suggested in the flippant comment by the Minister of Justice, which is often the case with his comments. I think that more and more people are becoming quite tired of the arrogance shown by the Member who has brought in this bill. Nonetheless, that is his style. It was also Brian Mulroney’s style, but there is not much left of that.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: The Government Leader is saying, “look who is talking about arrogance”. I can assure him that if I were a Minister, or a Government Leader, I would at least have the decency to answer the questions of the people of the Yukon, coming to them through elected representatives, which the Government Leader fails to do on an ongoing basis. Sometimes he does not know the answers, because he does not know what the heck is going on in government and sometimes he has to get the Minister of Justice up to answer the questions for him. If I were the Government Leader of this territory, I would answer the questions. I would never be as arrogant as the Government Leader is in this Legislature - never. Let us hope that ends that issue.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: The Minister of Justice says he does not think so. Well, the public will soon get an opportunity to cast their opinion on the actions of the government in the Legislature.

We have seen a pattern with this government and that pattern is that we have seen a continuous drawdown of the rights of working people, and we have seen this government give a very low priority to those rights. I speak specifically of three issues in one year.

We saw this government curtail a wide-ranging, broad-scoped occupational health and safety review that is important to working people and to employers, because we have seen dramatic increases in costs in workers’ compensation.

We have seen a very stubborn, almost vindictive approach, to collective bargaining and job security by the government. We have seen government workers make great sacrifices and go a long way toward reaching agreements with this government, but then the government, for what I see as sheer political gain, try to engage in a war with them. I think that is sad.

The third thing is the unnecessary repealing of proposed amendments, not yet proclaimed, to the Employment Standards Act.

Those are three clear, concise examples. I can go on about others. I could talk about some of the conversations I have had with the Ministers about the Employment Standards Act being used to recoup lost investment or lost wages in the form of severance and pay in lieu of notice by former employees of the Curragh mine operation. I have been told by government Ministers that that was the union’s responsibility even though it was clearly contained in the Employment Standards Act. Finally, I got a legislative return saying that they finally concurred with my opinion, and I am glad of that, but the bias was there.

The Minister responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Board stood up in this Legislature and said that the workers’ compensation fund was for the employers - he was going to protect it for the employers. That money is not for the employers. It is set up for the employees. It is money paid by the employers to reduce their liability in the workplace. It is as simple as that. This is not some poppycock, social program that the Members often express their negative views toward; this is a form of insurance that the employers purchase. It is as simple as that. If there is too much money being paid out of that fund, then there are too many accidents in the workplace and some preventive things must be done to try and curb that problem.

The Minister of Justice, in his introduction in second reading debate, said this bill was controversial and that was one of his reasons for repealing it. It certainly was controversial. Of course it was, and the government knew there was no big win in this. There would be no big political win in a review of the Employment Standards Act because the people it helps are not organized to speak out. If someone gets a letter to the editor or an article in the paper or someone speaks out in favour of it, they are isolated. It might be someone who works in a restaurant or someone who works at a gas station, who is following closely and sees that something is being done by government to protect some of their interests and appreciates that. But as so often is the case - and the Members opposite should realize this and I would think they would not be able to deny it - these people do not have a solid voice.

They are not as organized as the Chamber or Commerce, the Yukon Federation of Labour, the Yukon Conservation Society or the Chamber of Mines. These organizations are special interest groups that have very sophisticated avenues to reach to government. And they do it very well. It is not surprising that when an act is brought in that might have some negative, or what are perceived as being negative, impacts on these special interests groups, that they would lash out. They would say that they are wrong. When the right for workers to refuse occupational health and safety was brought out, workers were almost denied it on the basis that employers felt that you were legalizing the right to refuse work.

All those arguments were made, but thankfully governments persevered and recognized the moral issue and ingrained in law the right for workers to refuse hazardous work. There were no big points by the business community for that, or any political party, but thankfully it was done.

I am sure the Members are feeling quite confident and cocky about the fact that they have the Liberal Member of Legislature and the Member for Riverdale South on their side on this one, and that there does not seem to be a big public uprising against their repeal act. That is fine. I do not have a problem with that. But that does not mean it is right.

It may be politically correct. It may gain them some votes so that they can re-establish themselves with their Conservative constituents, but is it right? That is the issue to me. The issue is not why did the NDP not proclaim it, the issue is simply, is it good for the working people of this territory? Is it good for the Yukon overall? It does not matter. The government now has the ability to proclaim it, if they want to.

It is irrelevant if the NDP proclaimed it or not. It is absolutely irrelevant. If the Members opposite think that is the important point, it is now obvious why they make so many silly decisions.

The Government Leader decided yesterday that the government would or would not respond to an issue by listening to a phone-in show. It is no wonder that we get so many cockamamy decisions from the Members opposite in government - populous-poll politics, phone-in show politics.

When he did his year-end review he had the Tories lined up at the phone banks so that they could phone in and tell him what a wonderful job he had done all year. And he said thank you very much, sir; thank you, madame. Well, no one was buying it.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: The Government Leader says, “You are welcome.” Well, I can assure him I never phoned him to tell him what a good job he was doing.

We know what the real story is. The issue is simply, should the Government of the Yukon, of whatever political stripe, proclaim this legislation now? Is this legislation good for Yukoners, and good for working people? I say that the answer is yes.

The political argument is made by the Members opposite that it could not have been good legislation, and the NDP could not have cared about it, because they did not proclaim it. I say that is not the case. The political damage to this act was done by the Members opposite and a lot of the people who opposed the act during the process, not during the proclamation. It is as simple as that. The former Minister of Justice and the now Leader of the Opposition took their lumps during the process - that is when they took their lumps. Nobody in the public cared about the proclamation; they assumed it was a done deal.

There is no question that for a government to bring in a controversial bill, and take the kind of abuse from the Members opposite that they did - take their lumps - it indicates that they were serious about it. Whether it was proclaimed or not is not the issue. Nobody in the public would have cared about the proclaiming of it. They would not have thought it wonderful that the act was not proclaimed. They did not bring it in; they did not proclaim it - that is irrelevant to the public.

The point is that the NDP government was prepared to make amendments; they went to public consultation; they took their lumps from Members opposite and they formulated these amendments and were prepared to have them proclaimed - they were given assent, they were just not proclaimed. So, in the public’s mind, it was a done deal.

We still have not heard their reasons for not proclaiming it. Their whole case rests on the fact that because the NDP did not proclaim it, they are not going to. Their entire argument for not proclaiming the bill was that it was controversial. It does not matter to them whether or not it is the right thing to do; it is all politics - it is sickening, really sickening. If the words ring hollow in the ears of the Members opposite, we know why - we know about hollow matter on the other side of this Legislature, so it is not surprising.

The other reason that was identified, and this is probably the most preposterous reason of them all - especially with their record over the past year of listening to boards and committees - is that the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment was upset with some of the provisions that they went ahead with. There were over 50 recommendations made, and only one was ignored. Only one was not taken into account. That is a pretty good record. That is a better record than the Minister of Renewable Resources had with the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board - in one year.

Yesterday, I read an comment in a back issue of the paper from the now Government Leader who was then leader of the Yukon Party. He talked about how the former government never listened to boards and committees, and he brought up the Fish and Wildlife Management Board, because one recommendation was modified. What have we seen with this new government?

They are so blatant, and so arrogant about it. They actually advertise, in their Yukon Party newsletters, for nominations to positions to government boards and committees - absolutely preposterous. It is scandalous, and I hope the local media do a hatchet job on them for it, because they deserve it.

The Leader of the Opposition says “never”. I hope that is not the case, because they do deserve it.

I am very disappointed in the position of the Liberal Party on this issue. They stood up and voted for this at first reading. The Liberal Party courts both sides, they do lunch with the Chamber of Commerce, and then they might do lunch with the Yukon Federation of Labour and talk about the issues but, when push comes to shove, and when the proof in the pudding is in the eating, they stand up and say things like they are just supporting this because they believe in class warfare.

I want to tell the Liberal leader that $2.4 million in wages is owed to former Curragh employees, and the amendments to the act, in terms of notice and definition of wages, made clear, concise changes to the act in the hope of regaining these lost monies. I will make sure that I tell my constituents what the Liberal’s position is on their wage collection.

The government has done something else that I think is very disconcerting. With the introduction of this bill, we have seen the pure political act of repealing to try and gain some votes back with their Conservative constituency, because they have done such an absolutely disastrous job on most other issues they have entered into. I am sure that it will have some short-term impact and benefit for them, because the Minister has not yet produced one real non-rhetorical reason why he is repealing this bill.

It has nothing to do with collective bargaining, the government’s employees, or with what is in the existing Employment Standards Act legislation, because the amendments were not proclaimed. All that we have heard is that it is socialist dogma, but there has not been one real reason.

Everyone is clear that the amendments were not proclaimed. It is as simple as that, but what is sad is that the Minister of Justice does not bring in some kind of a plan at this point, accompanying the repeal, so that we can engage in that debate now. The Minister has no plan. He talks about the spring, but we have heard him talk about the spring before, in terms of a lot of the reviews he has underway, but we are not sure what spring he is referring to any more.

Time is ticking on the Members opposite - real quick - quicker every day, quicker every Question Period. I am sure all the bureaucrats are telling the Minister of Justice he is doing a wonderful job up there in his ivory tower and that is wonderful. Every back rub he gets I am sure he feels more and more confident, but I can tell him that the people out there are not being wooed by the decisions of this government.

As a matter of fact, most of my constituents feel I am rather calm in my remarks and too objective and balanced in terms of my remarks toward his government. That is tough to reconcile but they do say that to me at times.

The Member for Riverdale North ventured to say that he felt that businesses may have endured a worse and tough time in this downturn, as he calls it. That is the word that Tory governments use when they screw up the economy - they call it “downturn”; but when an NDP government is in and they have a problem with the economy, it is the socialist dogma that has taken over and run everything into the ground. In the downturn, as he put it, these businesses would have had tougher times. I do not think a lot of the provisions for any civil, decent employer in these amendments would have caused undue hardship. I would go so far as to say they would not cause hardship.

One of the problems in other countries is that they can have very good, strong economic growth. They can have GDPs that are going through the roof in terms of growth, but if it is not shared and if there is not some distribution of that wealth, then the economy is poor overall and we end up with huge discrepancies. That is what employment standards are designed to do. They are there to distribute, in a minimum way, the wealth, which makes economic growth more effective. Any economist will say that service sector, low-paying jobs do not have that positive an impact on the economy and that businesses that employ solely low-paying jobs are not contributing as well as high paying jobs. That is not to say they do not have a net overall positive impact, but high-paying jobs really serve to drive an economy because they give workers purchasing power. They give the citizens of a country purchasing power to buy cars, to buy TVs, to buy groceries - so that businesses can grow from this and hire more employees. It is a simple, cyclical equation. Minimum standards in employment are simply designed to set a base level that all employers must adhere to, and they are done for some very, very legitimate reasons.

The Minister of Education made the preposterous comment, born of ignorance, that this process was driven by the unions. It is fine when all of the other organizations - the chambers of commerce, the placer miners association and whoever complained about the act - made written and verbal submissions to the government, but when the Yukon Federation of Labour makes a submission and does not get its way, the process is driven by the unions. Whatever happened to compromise? I am seeing a pattern here; it is the same thing with the wolf management plan. It is perceived by the government as being developed by outsiders, when it was developed by insiders - Yukoners. It was a compromise.

Does the government of the day really think that environmentally minded people who agreed even an emergency requiring a wolf kill were happy about that decision, or do they think those people said, “let us compromise with the people who are polarized in favour of the wolf kill and meet somewhere in the middle”.

That is what this is all about. To say that it is driven by unions is preposterous. Should unions apologize for caring about people who are not organized and who do not have a strong voice or are they saying we would like to use more of our sophisticated lobbying, and our method of getting this voice out to help these people. I do not think they should apologize for that, because I think it is consistent with their principles and beliefs. Rather than being criticized for it, I think that a government should be commended for listening to all sides, and I think that they did listen.

I think there were people who were unhappy in the private sector and who worked at some of these jobs, that the amendments did not go further. I think that there was some dissatisfaction by people in the trade union movement that they also had to compromise with the government to achieve these proposed amendments, but that is the nature of government; that is what it is supposed to be.

I know that the Member for Riverdale North is not versed in the collective bargaining or certification process; that is obvious from his comments.

For example, every time he gets mad at me he starts screaming that I was a union representative, as if that is some plague that I wear for ever and ever, amen.

The Minister said that it was actually a document to try to increase union representation and make the unions grow. The document had nothing to do with the certification process of unions. There was no collective agreement written into law. It was simply a government saying that these are minimum standards and will be the law. If they are not in the collective agreement right now, then you have a poor collective agreement, but that does not mean they are wrong.

The certification process is simply governed by the Canada Labour Code. It had nothing to do with certification or more trade unionists, or writing provisions into law that were in the collective agreement. It was simply a document to develop some minimum standards, like we are trying to improve in Mexico and even in the United States. Right now, the administration in the United States is trying to undertake some measures to improve the minimum standards in the United States.

It has to be done in Mexico. There seems to be this machismo in the discussion around NAFTA that American and Canadian workers can compete. Whenever the government gets pressed, they say that Yukon workers can compete. We all believe that. Let us have a reality check here - 50 cents a day compared to $25 an hour gives a lot of room for the competition to have an edge. I know Yukon contractors can compete. I know that American and Canadian workers can compete, but you have to have a level playing field.

We still do not know what the government’s position is on contracts or on free trade. They are all over the place. They say because they are in the north they are going to have protection and that is fine. How long is that going to last? The prairie farmers say the same thing. They say, “We like free trade, but we have to have protection because we are farmers. We have to compete.”

Everyone says the same thing - the fisherman on the east coast. It is a preposterous position. I do not know how much longer it can go on. At least we are consistent. We are not in favour of the free trade agreement and realize the need for a regional economy here and say that we are open about it. We want to be protected here. We realize that having it both ways is not going to last forever.

In the 1993 fiscal year, there was $62,000 collected by labour services under the existing act, but there were still $53,000 uncollected, excluding $2.4 million owed to former Curragh employees, which I believe would be forthcoming much quicker if the amendments were there. But they are not. Now, for some reason, which I cannot identify yet - I do not know if it is vindictiveness or an effort to politicize or whether they are not committed to the principles of the amendments, even though they voted for them at third reading the year before last - they are not prepared to proclaim the legislation. They say it is because they do not believe in it. I do not know if it is one of the three reasons or all of the reasons.

I hope in the continuing debate we hear more about the reasoning, not just the political rhetoric, but the reasons. It is serious stuff and I believe the issue is, and they can laugh and chortle all they want and talk about the five minutes it would have taken to walk over and get it proclaimed. I believe, as responsible legislators, we have to take a look at where the document is now and who has the power to proclaim it and who does not. Right now, they do, we do not, and the issue is whether it is good for Yukoners, not whether it is politically sexy to do it.

The Employment Standards Act in 1992 collected over $250,000 in wages that were owed to employees, but still $34,000 was uncollected. That is very sad, and it is unnecessary.

I want to talk about some of the specific provisions in the amendments that were important, and I say they are still important - proclaimed or unproclaimed, they are important. Again, they could engage in as much political exchange on that as they want; the issue is that they are important to me and to a lot of people - a lot of people who may not speak out on it. That does not necessarily mean that it is not important.

The definition of wages would have been much clearer because right now in the legislation the definition of wages is not clear on what is, in essence, a contract of employment. Thus, we got the type of response that I got from the government Members when I talked about recouping the vacation pay and the pay in lieu of notice and the severance pay for former Curragh employees. They said severance pay was covered under the contract of employment. I said yes, and therefore, under the definition of wages it should be the aim of government to recoup those wages. They said it was not their responsibility. In essence it was, in the old act, but now it would be much clearer in the amendments, if they were adopted.

Another important section of the act, and probably one of the controversial things that were mentioned by the - actually, they were not, because they did not really talk specifics, just quite a bit of rhetoric about the political gains they hoped to make in this - but one of the controversial issues was the issue of employees being able to refuse overtime if they have family responsibilities to attend to, and under what circumstances they would be able to refuse overtime. It set out provisions for employers to give some form of notice to employees regarding their wish for employees to work overtime.

I do not know why that seems so diabolical. Examples were given where employers might want the overtime carried out, and there was some credence in those arguments. But there was also credence in the employees’ arguments and in the arguments made by groups like the Yukon Federation of Labour - and the government, in fact.

So, there was a compromise reached to say “except in case of emergency.” If there was an emergency, employees would have to work. You could have a mutual understanding as to what an emergency is defined as with your employer and agree, or you could disagree, one or the other. At least if you disagreed, it could be settled by some independent person later on and, if the employee felt strongly enough about it to disagree with their employer’s definition, I think you would get a very fair hearing. If you were passionate about it - I know this from jurisprudence and arbitration - if someone really believes that you felt that you could not stay and work that overtime, you will be heard. I think putting that in writing in the Employment Standards Act is a good idea but, if you are not sincere about it, then you will not be heard by an arbitrator or any independent person. There is still some onus on the employee, in this case, which is acceptable. This change was put into effect upon the recommendation of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment.

Another important part, in terms of change, was that paid-off time in lieu of overtime was included. There was no provision for this under the old act. This amendment was requested by both employers and employees. It gives employers more flexibility in scheduling time off and in timing wage payments and, for particularly those employees who are included in seasonal work, paid time off can be used for holidays or other purposes. That agreement had to be mutual and in writing. I would hope that the Members opposite would understand the benefit of that provision.

There was a provision to increase vacation pay, based on the length of service with an employer. This is an accepted practice, and I do not understand why the business community, or the Members opposite, would have such a huge problem with it.

It says that, the longer you work for an employer, the more valuable an asset you become; therefore, you should be rewarded for that overtime.

We are not talking about tremendous amounts of money here. You remain at the minimum level of four percent in this country until you have completed five years with an employer - five years before you raise one nickel over that four percent.

I have trouble really believing that that is too much for anyone to bear. If that is the margin of profit that keeps a business viable, we are in trouble - we are really in trouble. It is not going to be the vacation pay that kills a business. It might be the huge tax increases that the Members opposite brought in last budget, but it will not be vacation pay.

Quorum count

Speaker: It has come to my attention that we do not have a quorum, so I will ring the bells for four minutes, or until we do have a quorum.

Bells

Speaker: It appears that we now have a quorum. I would invite the Member for Faro to continue.

Mr. Harding: I thank the Members wholeheartedly for their undue attention - their undivided attention.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: It is not necessary to clap. I got a rousing round of applause from the Members opposite for the last speech I gave. They finally gave me some recognition.

Some of the other important elements of this act that I think would have been good for the employers and the employees of this territory, and for the economy of this territory, in the long run, include: paid time off in lieu of overtime, which I mentioned earlier; increased vacation pay for years of service; the parental leave for parents of either sex so that they may care for natural and adopted newborns; increased notice of termination to employees - and this is a very important section, as I mentioned earlier. It would have made it much clearer and much easier to recoup monies that were not paid to former Curragh employees. There was an increase in unpaid leave for illness and bereavement. There was a provision for recognizing cultural differences that may exist between employees, for First Nations people to attend potlatches and ceremonies that are traditional in their culture. I think that that was a wonderful provision and a very progressive undertaking by the government.

There was a provision to prohibit set-offs and unauthorized deductions from wages. There was a provision in the new act to assist employers in paying wages, extending the time to 10 days and seven days, respectively. The old act said that employers must pay within seven days from the end of each pay period, or three days after the termination date.

There was legislation to encourage employers to settle wage claims. Again, I point to some important amendments that would have improved the situation for the $2.4 million in wages owed to former Curragh employees. Again, I will reiterate to the Liberal Member of this Legislature how I intend to let the people in my community know where the Liberals stand on their wage claims.

There were provisions to clarify the powers and the duties of the Employment Standards Board, so we could have a non-biased approach to settling claims.

There was a provision to clarify the application and operation of the fair wage schedule, and to bind the Government of Yukon to its employees.

I think that the amendments were good for the economy of the Yukon, good for workers and good for businesses, and they will be in the long run. I wish the government would see that and proclaim the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Devries: I think that we have had several of the Opposition Members go over what the amendments were all about. Personally, I do not feel that is the issue that we are facing today.

The issue is the fact that the veterans on the side opposite chickened out when it came to bringing the legislation to the Commissioner. We only have to look at one of the last news articles. The Member who brought forward the amendments originally said, with an election looming, that the bill weakened somewhat to accommodate employers.

I am certain that the side opposite was not so incompetent in government that they actually forgot to bring this bill to the Commissioner and have it signed.

This was, and had to have been, a calculated decision that they did not want to bring this bill in prior to the election. They took a risk that they would get re-elected and bring it in at that time.

The side opposite lost the election.

They abandoned the workers to save their own political butts. They know very well that we had some problems with the amendments that were put forward and our voters very well knew that we had some problems with them. Right now, we are here and we are going to make a few changes to some of those amendments.

There is much in that bill, no doubt about it, that is needed and was good, and much of that bill will remain the same. I am not going to get into the specifics here, because really the issue here today is not the workers, not everything else - the issue here is that someone, the Members opposite, goofed. They, all of a sudden, became more concerned about their own political futures than about the workers of the Yukon. That is why Canadians are so disgusted with politicians nowadays - when they, all of a sudden, drop their principles. That is what these amendments were about - the principles of the NDP, and the various things for the workers, yes. There are things in there that certainly would benefit the workers.

The issue to me really is a political issue, and the NDP made a calculated decision to desert their workers and try and save their own political butts, and they lost. That is the issue we are talking about here today.

Ms. Moorcroft: Today, in Question Period, we saw that the happy coalition over there was a little bit unhappy. We saw it today in Question Period, when we heard the Minister of Justice distancing himself from other Cabinet Ministers. We also heard the Government Leader emphasize that the Minister of Justice is not a Yukon Party member.

When I stand up to debate a bill like the present one to repeal the Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, I have to recognize the distancing Ministers do when they want to avoid their responsibility for answering questions or they want to avoid the accountability of Cabinet Ministers for policy within his department - in the present government, using the term “his” is a reflection of facts, not sexist language. All of their MLAs are men.

I recognize the distancing Ministers do when they do not want to take responsibility for Cabinet decisions, but there is one thing this coalition is united on: what can the Yukon Party/Independent coalition take pride in? Well, of course, it is their united stand on striding back to the past. The Independent Minister of Justice wants to repeal Bill No. 13.

This Minister would have us believe that he would come in, the champion of workers, and modernize the 10-year old Employment Standards Act - this from the Minister who consistently opposed improvements for workers; this from the Minister who, for all his working life, whether as a lawyer or as a land claims negotiator, or as an Independent coalition Cabinet Minister, has earned far in excess of minimum wage and had far in excess of minimal benefits and working conditions.

I find that words ring hollow when the Minister of Justice says he will modernize employment standards. The Minister says he will protect the rights of workers in an admirable way. I do not find it admirable that the Minister is repealing the employment standards amendments.

I will not be supporting this bill, and I do not have much faith that, when the Minister of Justice finds the present amendments controversial, he will bring forward much of a safety net for the workers.

The Minister says the vast majority of Yukoners want to protect the rights of workers. He is not protecting the rights of workers when he brings forward this bill to repeal the Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act.

I have to wonder about his change of position when, on the second reading of Bill No. 13, the present Minister said he did not have much difficulty in the matter going ahead, and he was pleased to see that there was some compromise in the works. The amendments to the act would have benefited the workers in their ridings. I want to tell the government Members that every single one of them has workers in their ridings.

The Minister of Education said that Bill No. 13 was driven by the unions. Union members have a collective agreement. The employment standards legislation sets minimum standards that are far below what union contracts offer. Who are the unorganized workers? They are workers who are not represented by unions - women, youth, First Nations, visible minorities. These workers are retail store clerks, gas jockeys, taxi drivers, restaurant workers and domestic workers.

What are some of the abuses these workers face? They have shifts longer than eight hours in duration, with no overtime being paid. They are not paid a minimum two hours reporting pay, which is a requirement in the act. Schedules are posted, then amended, and there is no notification to employees. The number of hours worked after a meal break exceeds five.

There are many abuses, such as mandatory attendance at staff meetings, and not paying for the time to attend those meetings.

I think that repealing Bill No. 13 is about the principles of the Yukon Party, and those principles clearly show that workers do not count.

One of the longstanding issues in the Employment Standards Act has been the difficulty over paying overtime. The present act provides that workers get overtime after eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. But employees of businesses, time and again, at hearings of the Employment Standards Board tell us that their employers do not pay overtime. The workers’ right to receive overtime pay is a right that the Employment Standards Act establishes and protects. By transferring the hours worked for one business to the payroll of a second business, employees have been deprived of their benefits under the act to receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of eight hours in a day and 40 hours in a week.

The effect of the employers’ payroll action has been a deliberate arrangement to the detriment of employees that defeats the true intent and purposes of the act. The act establishes and upholds the employment standards and provides a remedy where those standards are not met. Employers will commonly appeal a certificate of wages that the labour services branch will have filed with the court.

We know that in 1993 - and these figures are from April 1 until October 31, 1993 - labour services collected $62,056.12 for workers who were not paid by their employers for wages  owed them. Even more disturbing is that $53,604 were not collected. These were wages that are owed to workers in this community and those workers were not able to buy their groceries, pay their rent, contribute to the economic well-being of the community because they never got their wages from their employers. That does not include over $2 million that is owed to Curragh workers that those workers in Faro - and some of them have left Faro - will likely never see.

In 1992, the labour services branch had to go and get employers to pay $275,970 to workers. Again, those are wages that workers were owed that their employers did not pay to them. There were over $34,000 that were never received by the workers.

An agreement that negates employees’ minimum rights under the law is neither legal nor legitimate. The Employment Standards Board has never accepted the argument that a contract that invites employees to sign away their minimum rights under the law is a legal or binding agreement. The board takes the position that the first obligation on the part of employers is to conform to the provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

In some of these cases, there are over $17,000 in one board decision that was owed to employees.

An anonymous informant contacted the labour services branch to say that the employer had failed to pay its employees overtime pay, in accordance with the provision of the Employment Standards Act. The employees named in the certificate had agreed, at the outset of their employment, that all hours worked would be at straight time, regardless of the hours worked, and that no holiday pay would be paid to them.

Ignorance of the law is not a reasonable excuse for failing to follow the law, but the issue of contracting out the minimum standards set by the Employment Standards Act is one that frequently, and somewhat tiresomely, comes before the Employment Standards Board. The board then rules that, while employees may have agreed to work overtime hours at their normal straight time rates, section 3 of the Employment Standards Act clearly provides that an employee cannot abrogate his or her rights under the Employment Standards Act by way of any contract or arrangement with the employer.

Time and again, an employer will present a contract signed by several of the employees, which confirms that they agreed that the no overtime condition was a term of their employment. Agreement of the employees in writing is of no material relevance.

The employees’ agreement, whether verbal or written, is unenforceable, insofar as the terms of the agreement fall short of the minimum standards set out in the act.

Another abuse that we see is that employers will approach an employee and want to offset the costs of room and board from overtime pay that is owed to them.

There were 1914 and 1937 statutes that provided that, in mining camps, which is often where these arrangements come up, the employer had the responsibility to either offer room and board or pay a stipend in lieu of room and board. Whether or not they offer room and board, they should not be able to refuse to pay overtime.

One of the sections of the amendments to the Employment Standards Act that this government wants to repeal was a section that would have taken the infamous section 50 out of the act. I was quite disturbed and disappointed when I heard that the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment was swayed by employer representation that section 50 should stay in the Employment Standards Act. No other jurisdiction in Canada has such a regressive clause in its employment standards legislation. When the previous government took a stand and said, “We adopt the principle of a day’s work for a day’s pay, or an hour’s work for an hour’s pay”, I was proud of that. I can tell you who I was not proud of. As a Yukoner, I was not proud of the Commissioner when he refused to sign the bill. The Commissioner should have signed the bills. They belonged to the people; they belonged to the Legislature, and this Legislature had passed them at third reading. Present Ministers of this government had supported them. I wonder if the Minister of Justice is now going to bring forward acts to repeal the Heritage Resources Act. I wonder if he is going to bring forward an act to repeal the Public Government Act. I wonder if he is going to bring forward an act to repeal the Victims of Crime Compensation Act. I wonder if they are going to bring forward an act to repeal the Advisory Council on Women’s Issues Act.

I would like to say a little more about section 50, where workers can have a week’s wages deducted if they do not give notice.

There was a case before the board on that very issue. In this case, the employer became uncharacteristically critical and irritable toward the employee. The supervisor’s manner of criticizing the employee developed into tirades of shouting and screaming at the employee. The employer called the employee at home and berated her loudly over the telephone. Now, the employee became understandably distressed and humiliated at the manner of her treatment. The employer had also refused to come through with a promised raise in wages. The employee justifiably found that the employment relationship was no longer tolerable. So what did the employee do? She quit without notice, and the board was called upon to consider the applicability of part 8 of the Employment Standards Act. Section 47 of the act enumerates a variety of situations where the notice provisions of part 8 do