Tuesday, February 7, 1995 - 1:30 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with silent Prayers.
Speaker: At this time,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 two legislative returns for tabling.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I have a document for tabling.
Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?
Are there any Petitions?
Are there any Bills to be introduced?
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 Question Period.
Question re: Northwestel, layoff of employees
Mr. Penikett: I have a question for the acting Government Leader. Yesterday the Government Leader, in response to a question about possible layoffs at Northwestel, said, "there is no doubt that the reduction in the workforce ... has to do with Northwestel's rebalancing application and competition coming to the Yukon in May 1996." Today we understand that Northwestel announced it intends to lay off up to half of its work force. Could the acting Government Leader tell the House if the government was aware of the extent of these potential layoffs?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We understood that there would be in the area of 200 to 300 layoffs across the north, not only in the Yukon.
Mr. Penikett: I regret to say that that did not answer the question. We know the layoffs are taking place across the north and we also know that there is going to be a powerful negative impact on this town.
The Government Leader mentioned an internal task force report, which is being conducted by Northwestel. Would the acting Government Leader tell this House when the government knew about the layoffs, and whether or not anyone in Cabinet had any substantial conversations with Northwestel, prior to this decision, about the impact of the decision?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I will take that under advisement. I did not have any conversations with Northwestel.
Mr. Penikett: This is a matter of major importance to the local economy; I can only assume that the Cabinet must have discussed it. Would the acting Government Leader tell us when the Cabinet discussed this matter and something about the nature of the discussions? We are told that the Government Leader is going to be away for a week, so I want to know who is going to be meeting with Northwestel to discuss the impact of this announcement on the local economy and on the local employees. Who will be responsible for doing that?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I will not discuss what has gone on in Cabinet. I can assure the Member that we will be in contact with Northwestel to discuss the situation.
Question re: Northwestel, layoff of employees
Mr. Penikett: This is a matter of supreme public importance. It is a matter for public discussion now. Can I ask the acting Government Leader this, since he was a central part of this decision: has the Cabinet discussed or reflected on whether the decision the government made to kill the Taga Ku project - and the Northwestel office tower, as a result - may have had calamitous consequences on that company's decision about whether or not to maintain its workforce here?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: That is a hypothetical question.
Mr. Penikett: It is not a hypothetical question. The Minister opposite killed the Taga Ku project two years ago, a project that might have helped guarantee Northwestel jobs in this town. I understand that some of those jobs, including billing jobs, are going to be sent south, and some of the other jobs are going to be contracted out. Has this government had any discussions at all with Northwestel about the impact on its unionized workforce, as a result of the decision that has been made, and the impact on the local economy?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The Leader met with them, I believe, two weeks ago. I am not aware of what went on in that conversation.
Mr. Penikett: Unfortunately, the Leader skipped town before we got a chance to discuss the jobs skipping town. Can I ask the acting Government Leader again: has this Cabinet discussed this very significant event? Has it made any contingency plan? Has it adopted any position that it will take to Northwestel to try and persuade this company to maintain as much of its workforce here as it possibly can?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: As I have said before, I will not discuss what goes on in Cabinet.
Speaker: I would just like to remind the Members that it is improper to indicate that someone is not present.
Question re: Yukon Excellence Awards
Mr. Cable: I have some further questions for the Minister of Education about this dollars-for-scholars program he dreamed up a few weeks ago. I understand that there are petitions being circulated in Porter Creek and Riverdale by some of the stakeholders in education, who are objecting to the lack of consultation about this program on the part of the Minister. The first part of recommendation 38 from the education review stated, "When standardized testing initiatives are implemented, a representative group of stakeholders be involved in the planning and development process." It appears, from the document in reply to the Education Review Committee report, that the Minister is going to bring the stakeholders in at the end of the road, after a draft is presented. Could the Minister indicate what part the stakeholders are going to play in the planning relating to this testing?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: It is fairly straightforward. The department is going to draft a plan and then enter into consultation with the stakeholders.
Mr. Cable: Could the Minister indicate why the stakeholders are not being brought into the planning process prior to the drafting of the plan, as recommended by the Education Review Committee?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: It is simply a matter of starting off with a draft document that would be a draft plan of how to implement standardized testing and diagnostic assessment in the core subjects. Once that draft is prepared, they will enter into the appropriate consultations.
Mr. Cable: The other problem the petitioners are objecting to is the lack of consultation with respect to the Yukon Excellence Awards program.
I understand that markedly different results came in from the communities. I think seven out of some 300 students qualified, whereas in the Whitehorse area a markedly higher percentage of students qualified. Is the Minister still confident that a system that has a broad-brush approach such as that will meet the needs of his program in the rural areas?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: We are clearly talking here about a scholarship program with certain standards, and that is all that we introduced - a scholarship program. Apparently some people object to scholarships being offered by the government. I very strongly favour the concept of scholarships being offered and I really do not understand the Member's concern.
Question re: Yukon Excellence Awards
Mr. Harding: I have the same question for the same Minister on the same issue: the Yukon Excellence Awards. People in the Yukon are concerned about inequality, as represented by the fact that only two percent of the students in the rural communities will qualify for retroactive excellence awards, while 18 percent of the students in Whitehorse will qualify for the awards. Hearing the Minister's last answer, I must ask him this again: why is he not concerned about the inequities that are being fostered between rural and urban Yukon by the handing out of these awards to a large majority of students who are coming from Whitehorse and not from the communities?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: We are clearly philosophically a great distance apart - we on this side and those on the NDP benches over there. I believe in scholarship. I believe in excellence in education. I would like to see the education system deliver just as high a quality in standards and education to the smaller communities in the Yukon as it does to Whitehorse, if that is the concern.
Simply pretending that we should be handing out money called scholarships on an equal basis, or on some other basis, does not make any sense to me and really goes against the things that we are trying to achieve.
Mr. Harding: I want to assure the Minister that we believe in scholarships, in some cases; the Yukon education grant is one. We also believe in excellence in education. The question is this: are the Yukon Excellence Awards the best way to promote a vehicle that does promote excellence in education? The Minister said, in trying to justify the development of this award, that he spoke to school councils and to parents about it. Yet, the education review did not mentioned a request for this award for excellence in the schools. Can the Minister tell me specifically which school council he spoke to that requested this award?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: Again, this is a fairly simple concept. It is called a scholarship. It is offered to students who achieve 80 percent or better in certain courses, from grade eight through grade 12. I really do not understand why the Member opposite would think we would have to consult in order to simply put into place a scholarship. What is the downside to it?
Mr. Harding: The Minister said he consulted. It is becoming readily apparent that he did not consult, and the reason that the consultation is important is because the theme of partnership in education has some considerable merit when it is put into practice. Unfortunately, this government does not seem to see that. I want to ask the Minister this again, because he did not answer my last question: as he said that he spoke to school councils and parents, I would like to ask him which school council specifically asked for the development of this award? Can he tell me that?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: This is a clear indication of where the NDP is coming from. For virtually every positive initiative this government brings forward, the NDP finds some way of attacking it, normally off the point. If the program is good, like the excellence awards program, then the Members attack consultation. If the consultation is good enough, they attack something else.
In order to maintain some credibility as an official Opposition, why not try to be positive about some initiatives that have merit.
Question re: Northwestel, layoff of employees
Mr. McDonald: As soon as the government makes the announcement, we will be very positive.
The next couple of weeks will be a time of great anxiety for many Northwestel employees, as well as of great uncertainty for the local economy they help to support. So far, all we know is that the Government Leader had a meeting with Northwestel a couple of weeks ago, but we do not know what was said.
Given the importance of this issue to so many people, can the Minister tell us what the government's strategy is to reduce the negative impact of the Northwestel announcement made today?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: As it was just announced yesterday, it will take a little while for the government to come up with a strategy. I will come back tomorrow with all the information we have on this.
Mr. McDonald: The Minister indicated that the Government Leader had a meeting a couple of weeks ago. Surely there was some discussion about what was pending. Surely the government would have made some contingency plans to deal with a situation that will have enormous impact on the local economy.
Can the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, the Minister of Government Services, the Minister of Health and Social Services, the Minister of Tourism, or the Minister of Economic Development tell us what the plan of action will be?
Hon. Mr. Nordling: Perhaps I can help. I attended a meeting with Mr. Dunbar of Northwestel and the Government Leader, where we talked about what was generally going to happen with respect to Northwestel's rate rebalancing and possible layoffs.
At that time, Northwestel indicated that there would be some layoffs across the north. At that meeting, though, there was no suggestion that we should be alarmed by the possible layoffs that were coming.
The news we have now heard is cause for some concern. As the Deputy Government Leader has said, we will have to talk to Northwestel again. My impression of the meeting was that there was no cause for alarm.
Mr. McDonald: There is obviously plenty of reason to be alarmed at this point. Clearly, this government is going to have to take some pretty fast action in order to be effective at all.
Can the Minister of Government Services tell us whether or not the government will be making representations to Northwestel immediately, to both the local office and the head office in Montreal, to determine whether or not there is any possible way that the negative impacts can be reduced? Perhaps Northwestel can hold some sort of discussions with the government over time to determine whether or not there will be any negative impact on consumers, as well.
Hon. Mr. Nordling: I think the Deputy Government Leader indicated that we would be in contact with Northwestel immediately on this. My sense of it is that those are exactly the concerns that we would bring up in an effort to minimize the negative impact.
Question re: MacRae access road
Mr. Penikett: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Transportation Services arising from his answers about the MacRae frontage road, which the government helped subsidize to the extent of $20,000, even though the Minister had told us that they had no policy.
Is the Minister aware of a policy statement issued by the former Minister of Community and Transportation Services on November 1, 1993, to the effect that, "Departmental policy with respect to the access to highways requires that the cost of access construction are the responsibility of the applicant. This includes related costs, such as clearing and excavation to achieve safe-sight distance in the vicinity of the access. It is not reasonable for taxpayers to fund the costs of this related work as a result of access construction." Is the Minister aware of that policy statement from his ministerial predecessor in the same Cabinet?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We certainly seem to be kicking this one around.
The people who built the roads spent over $100,000 of their own money. They do not own the road; it will belong to the city. We got them to build the road that way so that there would be eight accesses on to the road. There were three already. We have taken one off, so there are now two accesses. They have been there for years. We did not have the equipment here. We would have had to haul it in to build that short distance of road. It was our responsibility. They built that and, in return for that, we put the gravel on the road.
Mr. Penikett: This Minister has given us three sets of contradictory answers to this question. He has told us that he did it because it reduced YTG maintenance costs. He later admitted that YTG had no maintenance costs. He said that they did it for safety. Then he admitted that he could have refused permits to access the road on safety grounds. Then he said that there was no policy. Today, I have read into the record a policy statement by his predecessor.
Can I ask the Minister again why his government agreed to pay $20,000 to help one developer develop one access road, while other people in the territory, as we heard yesterday, have applied for the same thing, but were turned down by this government?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We did not spend $20,000; it was $19,000. We might as well get the facts straight while we are here. We are kicking individuals around who cannot defend themselves. On the road at Faro, that individual wanted $10,000 to build a road. This gentleman did not ask us for one cent of money.
Mr. Penikett: Let me be absolutely clear. The only individual I am trying to kick around on this issue is the Minister who has, in writing, told us something that was not true, then retracted it, and then gave three different answers on the floor of this House - three contradictory answers - as to why he put up $20,000. Since it was more than $19,500, we will round it up to $20,000. Let me ask the Minister this: does he agree with the policy statement made by his predecessor that, "It is not reasonable for the taxpayers of the Yukon to fund the cost of this work." Does he agree with that policy statement by his predecessor?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Mr. Speaker, the Member is asking a personal question; I am not going to answer it, but I will point out that the department has informed me that there is no policy and there are no regulations.
Question re: MacRae access road
Mr. Penikett: We have to ask the great Shakespearean question: when is a policy not a policy? To be a policy, or not to be a policy? When you get a letter from a Minister, signed, "Mickey Fisher, Minister of Community and Transportation Services", which says, "Departmental policy with respect to access to highways requires that the costs of the access construction are the responsibility of the applicant," when did this policy not become a policy, or when did the Minister adopt the position that there was no policy on this matter on which his predecessor had made a policy?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: That one kind of goes around in a circle, does it not?
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Brewster: That lady is talking over there again.
I was informed by the department - and I accept what they told me - that there was no policy. We went into this and thought we were doing it correctly. We tried to work with an individual; we tried to save the taxpayers money and, as usual, the NDP is kicking us all apart for it.
Mr. Penikett: The point is that all individuals be treated equally, that all individuals receive fair treatment, and that all individuals in similar circumstances are treated in a similar manner. That is why you have a policy.
The Minister said there is no policy. His predecessor said that there is a policy, and he put it in writing. Can I ask the Minister this: who makes the policy in the Department of Community and Transportation Services?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It was done by the Minister in consultation with his Cabinet.
Mr. Penikett: I would like to ask the Minister, if his predecessor made the policy that I have just read out in consultation with his Cabinet, when did the present Minister, in consultation with his Cabinet, rescind it? The Minister says that there is no policy, but his predecessor says there is. Perhaps I could help by tabling this letter, after I have removed some of the gratuitous comments in the margins.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I am not going to say that it was a change in policy; the department informed me that there was no policy.
Question re: Public Utilities Board, interventions before
Mr. Penikett: Let me try another Minister, and another policy. In the Yukon News on January 20, we read that the Justice department has recommended that the utilities pick up the costs of interventions before the Public Utilities Board. In answering questions about that subject on January 26, the Government Leader seemed to indicate some dissent from that point of view. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice what the policy of the Government of Yukon is.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I did not read the article in the Yukon News, so I do not know what the Minister is talking about.
Mr. Penikett: Soon I am going to ask for a subsidy from the Members opposite for doing research for them. Perhaps the Page could take this to the Minister. I want to ask him if the statement published in the Yukon News on January 20, which I am about to show him, was an accurate one. The statement was to the effect that the Justice department is recommending that the electrical utilities - Yukon Electrical and the Yukon Energy Corporation - pick up the costs of rate applications before the Public Utilities Board.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I am not going to comment on the validity of the article in the Yukon News. I will check with Justice officials and bring back the response to the Member.
Mr. Penikett: Let me ask a question of fact. Is it not a fact that last year the Department of Justice recommended that the cost of public hearings before the Public Utilities Board for power rate applications be borne by the utilities?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: Standing as the acting Minister on behalf of Yukon Development Corporation and the past Minister of Justice, I was somewhat surprised by the statements made by the Leader of the Official Opposition, because the proposal that was being examined, which was not a commitment, was to have the cost of the hearings rolled into the cost of the rates. There was never any discussion that the utility company should pay for this and not recover those costs from the cost of energy. That was never the position. To my knowledge, this has never been done anywhere else in Canada. I really do not know how the Leader of the Official Opposition could have seriously thought that that was ever being contemplated.
Question re: Public Utilities Board, interventions before
Mr. Penikett: I am not certain in which ministerial capacity I am putting this question about Department of Justice matters to the former Minister, to which he, being a great parliamentarian, knows he cannot answer.
Could I ask the Minister if it is the view of the Yukon Energy Corporation, for which he is now the acting Minister, that the government should order the transfer of Utilities Board costs related to electrical rate applications and other inquiries or public hearings from the Department of Justice to the applicant utility and then subsequently, as he said, to the ratepayers - in other words the electrical consumers of the Yukon. Should the millions and millions of dollars spent for lawyers and accountants be picked up by the electrical consumer?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am very happy for the question, because I think the Member opposite is getting it. The issue that has been of concern to this government and, as I had understood it, of grave concern to the previous government, was the high cost of the Public Utilities Board hearings.
One option being canvassed would be to have the cost of the Utilities Board hearings borne by the electrical ratepayers as is done in numerous jurisdictions. That, it was felt, may be a stimulant to streamlining a process in which to shorten the time spent by the players and focus people's attention on the real issues that drive electrical rates in the Yukon...
Speaker: Order please. Would the Minister please conclude his answer.
Hon. Mr. Phelps: ...and those issues where the utility companies are asking for too much.
Mr. Penikett: I am not at all clear how passing on the costs to consumers provides any incentive for the utilities to expedite the process or reduce their costs. In fact, I would think it provides exactly the opposite incentive, and that is the problem.
Can I ask the Minister if among the options also being canvassed was the possibility of giving more clear and more precise direction from Cabinet to the Public Utilities Board and the utilities about the policy framework for the applications? Could I also ask the Minister if an option was also considered about putting a cap on the actual costs of the hearing process?
Hon. Mr. Phelps: Certainly those options and others were being canvassed when I was the Minister.
Mr. Penikett: That final phrase says it all. I do not know of any other parliament where people can ask questions about their former ministerial capacity. Anyway, we seem to have changed things here.
Let me ask this Minister, since he is still today acting for one of the utilities anyway, if he can tell us when we are likely to get a decision on this important policy matter, which had been formerly the responsibility of the Department of Justice.
Hon. Mr. Phelps: First of all, I am sure the Member opposite will remember numerous occasions where he was asked questions by Members of the Opposition when he was the Leader of the government and he insisted on having others answer the questions for him. That aside, I am standing here as the acting minister for the Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation and, of course, any decisions made regarding the Utilities Board would be made by the Department of Justice.
Question re: Forestry
Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Minister responsible for Renewable Resources.
The Minister recently spoke at a forestry symposium that was attended by about 200 people, at which time the Minister indicated that forestry was going to become the second largest private sector industry in the Yukon. I would like to ask the Minister if he could tell us how and when this is going to happen.
Hon. Mr. Fisher: With the forest industry activity in the Watson Lake area, the interest in the Haines Junction area, the interest in the Quiet Lake area, and a small industry in the Dawson area, the potential is there. I believe those are the words that I used - "is, therefore, the forest industry to become the second largest industry in the Yukon."
Mrs. Firth: Whether or not we get into the word "potential", the Minister tried to leave the impression that forestry was going to be seen as the second largest industry in the Yukon.
At that symposium, the Minister also commented at great length about, "a made-in-Yukon, state-of-the-art forestry policy".
I would like to ask the Minister when this policy will be ready, and at what stage it is in its development?
Hon. Mr. Fisher: The departments of Economic Development and Renewable Resources are working together to lay out a strategy, or outline, of how the policy will be formulated. Following the transfer, I believe there is a six-month period in which our policy is to be implemented.
Mrs. Firth: So there really is no policy yet. It is just in the development stage and is a strategy. The Minister simply read a nice speech out that someone wrote for him for the symposium.
At the symposium, the Minister also made the comment that legislation would facilitate the development of a sustainable and healthy forestry resource economy that maximizes benefits to Yukoners. Can the Minister tell us at what stage the legislation preparation is?
Hon. Mr. Fisher: Again, when the forestry transfer occurs, there will be referential legislation for an interim period, which essentially means that we will be using the existing federal legislation during that time. Our legislation will be developed following the policy development.
Question re: Forestry
Mrs. Firth: I would like to follow up with the same Minister regarding the same issue.
After the nice speech the Minister gave at the symposium that forestry was going to be the second-largest industry, which talked about state-of-the-art policy and legislation, we find out that it has the potential to be the second-largest industry, there is no policy - it is simply being discussed - and the government has not even started on its own legislation yet.
I would like to ask the Minister about a comment he made: that when the devolution of Yukon forestry policies is in progress within the Yukon government, there will be a full consultation process with the Yukon public. Can the Minister tell us how this full public consultation process is going to work and just what the government is going to consult on?
Hon. Mr. Fisher: There has been, and will be, consultation with, for instance, the stakeholders in Watson Lake. Part of the whole consultation process for developing legislation and policy is part of the whole outline of the policy planning process.
Mrs. Firth: Perhaps the Minister could clarify this great thing that they are going to do for Yukoners within a six-month period of time. Are they going to consult first and then develop the policy, or are they going to develop some kind of policy and legislation and then consult? How does he see the process working?
Hon. Mr. Fisher: What I would expect to see, following consultation with the department, would be a draft policy and draft legislation. The current federal legislation would become the basis for a discussion paper, which would then be discussed with stakeholder groups and individuals in specific communities in the territory.
Mrs. Firth: Is the Minister just kind of making this up on his feet now or is there actually some plan in place and some strategy? After the questions and answers today, I am left with a distinct impression, as I am sure most Yukoners are, that there is not a plan in place, and that the Minister does not have any idea how it is going to work. He is just kind of winging it or trying to make it up as he stands up to answer questions today. It is dishonest. Is there a plan?
Question re: Forestry
Mr. Harding: Apparently the Minister is not going to answer that question. I have a follow-up question for him regarding plans, policies and developments. I hope he will answer my question.
The issue and one of the key components of solid forestry policy has to be some definition of sustainability. I would like to ask the territorial government what its definitive position is on sustainability, and what its policy proposal is going to be for Yukoners in that area.
Hon. Mr. Fisher: The negotiations that are being conducted with the federal government right now include a silviculture component. For the forest industry to be sustainable, there has to be silviculture.
Mr. Harding: I hope that is not the extent of this government's policy work in the sustainability area. I asked the previous Minister responsible over a year ago what this government's definition of sustainability will be in forestry industry, and now he stands up today and tells us that they have had some brief preliminary discussions about silviculture demands, yet there is no parallel policy process accompanying the negotiations.
The Minister stood up at the symposium and declared that the industry was going to become the second largest in the Yukon. How does he know that it is going to become the second largest, if he does not even know what the definition of sustainability for that industry is going to be?
Hon. Mr. Fisher: The activity in southeast Yukon, in both the La Biche and Watson Lake area, should indicate to the Members opposite that the forest industry has the potential to become the second largest industry in the territory.
Mr. Harding: It is as simple as that with this government. It is like the Beringia Centre, the Division Mountain coal announcement, the railroad to Carmacks or the interlocking power grid between Alaska, B.C. and the Yukon. It is all huff-and-puff claims with no substance.
If the Minister is so confident that it is going to become one of the top two industries in the territory, can he tell us which will be displaced by the growth in the forestry industry: mining or tourism?
Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not believe anything will be displaced. We hope they will all be very viable industries.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has elapsed.
Notice of Government Private Members' Business
Hon. Mr. Phillips: Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7), I would like to identify the items standing in the name of the government private Members to be called on Wednesday, February 8, 1995. It is Motion No. 22, standing in the name of the Member for Klondike.
Speaker: We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess at this time?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Chair: We will take a brief recess.
Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.
Bill No. 4 - First Appropriation Act, 1995-96 - continued
Community and Transportation Services - continued
Chair: Is there any further general debate on the Department of Community and Transportation Services?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I have for tabling a number of documents.
Mr. McDonald: While we are having a look at the documents, perhaps we can bring closure to an issue that was raised today - as well as the last couple of days - about the policy on access road construction.
I must admit that, after listening to the to and fro, I am none the wiser about precisely what the policy is respecting this particular activity. There have been many different reasons given for the access road having been constructed along the Alaska Highway, some of which no longer appear to be valid. There is a suggestion that there will be O&M savings as a result of the construction. It appears that while there may be savings, they are not going to be realized by the Yukon government.
We were told that the reason to construct the access road in the manner in which it was done was to promote safety, only to discover that the permitting process can control the number of accesses to the road if any one or more of the accesses are deemed unsafe.
We were initially told that there was no policy dealing with this matter. Then we were told that really it was the policy of the previous government that was operative. Then we discovered that there was a clear policy statement issued by the previous Minister of Community and Transportation Services on the matter - a very precise policy statement. We are told today that there is no policy, but also that this policy by the previous Minister has not been rescinded.
I am not sure that I understand the situation at all, having listened to all of that. Can the Minister assist us in clarifying the matter, so that we can put the matter to rest and feel comfortable that there is a consistent departmental policy, and that the funds were expended because it was necessary, and that all individuals who come before the department seeking public funds will be treated in the same, fair manner?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: During the break I had a talk with the department, and apparently departments make up their own small policies to control roads and such. I was unaware of that at the time, but that is the way it is. This situation with access roads has never happened before. The right-of-way road was put in, and then he had to cross Yukon territorial land on the pumphouse side - he came out on an old access road, which was not on his property. It should have been our responsibility. Otherwise he could have come straight out on to the highway. On the other end, he bought land and joined the Fraser Road. In both cases, the engineers had him make a curve in the road so that big trucks would not have to make a sharp turn when coming on to the two existing access roads.
The government felt it was our responsibility to build the road in front of the Yukon land. We felt that the new road on to Fraser Road was not on his property and was our responsibility to build. He had the Cat, the graders and everything there. He turned around and said he would put in the heavy fill and build it up and we could put the gravel on top to finish it. To me, it was a simple thing. Nobody has tried to cheat, and nobody has used any favouritism or anything else. The decision was made by the director and the supervisor on the job. I respect what they did, and I think they made the right decision.
Mr. McDonald: The Minister said that this really has nothing to do with accesses on to the highway; it is all about building a frontage road - is that the case? Because it is an extension of the frontage road that parallels the Alaska Highway, there would be two different policies. One is access construction, which the department does not pay for.
Maybe I should ask the questions one at a time.
Is it departmental policy that the costs of access construction are the responsibility of the applicant?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes, it is.
Mr. McDonald: Okay, there should be no concerns about the access on to the highway, because that is not the issue at hand; the issue was the construction of a frontage road. Is it the policy of the department to pay for all frontage roads and for all roads of this sort. Was this particular project in the department's capital plan to construct anyway, or did it happen because the developer came along?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It was not in the capital plan. It was because a private individual came along and wanted to get some accesses on to the highway. The department thought it was correct, and I still say it was correct. However, if you look at the map, this is Yukon land and why should this person pay for frontage on Yukon land, which is government land. We paid for the portion that was Yukon land on the Pump House Road. The access comes on to the highway. We felt that we were responsible for the access road to Fraser Road. This person built the entire access road and we gravelled it.
I cannot see why we are having such a ruckus over a thing that is so simple. We have eliminated at least eight to 10 accesses that this person could have technically put - one for each property, based on old accesses that have been there for years. On top of that, this person repaired part of the Pump House Road, between the right-of-way and the Alaska Highway.
Mr. McDonald: I think that we have already established that if there were any safety concerns about the number of accesses onto the highway - if the concerns were safety related - the government could have denied the permits to permit access on to the highway. If there was a reasonable safety concern that eight accesses on to the highway would have caused a safety problem, the Minister has indicated that the permits could have been denied.
With respect to the frontage road construction, the Minister indicated that because some of the road was built on Commissioner's lands, that would be the responsibility of the Yukon government.
Is that a general policy that could be applied elsewhere? If other people come along, can we say to them that, if they have a piece of property requiring access that must cover Yukon lands in order to get to a particular artery or roadway, there will be financial support from the government?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: This piece of Yukon land we are talking about is land that we can sell. It joins on to the Pump House Road. The Member is saying we can stop the accesses, but three accesses were already there before this project even started. The map we gave the Member shows the three existing accesses. They were not just put in; they were there already.
Mr. McDonald: I do not understand the relevance of that. As I understand the policy with respect to highway access, if there is a legitimate safety concern identified by the department, it can deny an access permit. That is my understanding. If that is not the policy, please qualify it because we do not want to labour under some misapprehension. Is that the policy?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Under section 33, access can be controlled on the highway, but there are no regulations for that at the present time.
The three access roads the Member is talking about could have been there 10 years ago. They have been there a long, long time - I do not know exactly how long. They did not just show up now. They were there long before we started this project, and they had permits to be there. We eliminated them, which to me is a safety factor. We eliminated them by bringing everyone on to the two access roads. The Old Pump Road is directly across from Mount Sima, so you have two coming in at right angles, which is the safest way. At the other end, we had them make the bend, so that they face right into traffic. We eliminated three access roads by doing this. I do not know, I guess we can go all day about it.
Mr. McDonald: Maybe so, but maybe not.
The problem that I have here is that if the department feels there is a safety-related concern as a result of access roads on to a highway, it is empowered to do something about that. In the MacRae area, the department has taken the trouble to try to reduce the number of accesses on to the highway. The development of a frontage road has been encouraged, and that sort of thing. These are things that, presumably, the department does for safety reasons.
We do not disagree on the point that there should be fewer accesses for reasons of safety on that particular stretch of road. That is not an issue. I am not criticizing the end result, the quality of construction or the developer for coming to apply to the government. I am not even criticizing the developer for getting money from the government. What I am concerned about is whether or not the government should have given out that financial benefit - period. That is not to say that the end result was not a sound decision by the people in charge. I just want to know if, in similar circumstances, someone comes to the government seeking financial assistance of this kind, they can get it and not get the run-around from anyone.
If, for example, another constituent comes along and wants access on to the Stewart Highway and that access is going to traverse Yukon lands, Commissioner's land, I want, from all the time that we spend in this Legislature, to be able to tell him that if he goes to the department, he will get financial support because he has got a need to develop access on to highway. The department will be able to deny a permit if it is an unsafe access. Once a safe access location is identified, if that person has to traverse Yukon lands, they can get some money from the Yukon government to help them with the approach. Given what we have gone through here in this particular case, can the constituent expect that kind of treatment from the government?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: If it were under the same circumstances as this, I would say they would probably use their heads and do it. They keep saying that they got a financial contribution from us. We would have had to do both ends of that road - and I do not know how many times I have to say this - because they are not in front of his property. He could have run straight out from either place on to the highway and it would have been a lot cheaper for him.
We put the gravel on to finish the road. I suppose we could have said, "No, we are not putting the gravel on, you do that," and they could still have survived on the road. He maintains it and looks after it right now, so I suppose we could have done it that way.
If someone comes along with the same situation, I suppose we would look at that specific situation. There are no regulations, so I think some common sense should come in to it. I certainly do not think that the taxpayers were hurt on this one at all.
Mr. McDonald: I do not think this is a wise expenditure of funds. Having read through all the material the Minister provided, the engineering judgment on how the road should be constructed and where it should have been constructed, as far as I am concerned, was a wise professional decision. The decision to actually expend public funds was something that should not have been made, or it should apply to other people in similar circumstances. I am not talking about similar circumstances in the MacRae area, but right across this territory, so that whenever someone wants access on to a public highway, if any of the access road traverses Yukon land, they will receive money.
If that is the policy, I expect the government does not have enough money budgeted for this particular item, because there will be all kinds of requests for public funds to build private roads on public lands. It is a strange policy, and I do not understand the nature of this policy.
I understand the government wanting to come up with a particular result, but I do not understand why it spent taxpayers' money to do it.
The Minister keeps saying that the department reduced the number of access roads on to the Alaska Highway. However, if there was no safety concern, why should the Yukon government care at all? If there is a safety concern, then the government has the option to deny the permit.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The three roads have been there for years. Are we supposed to tell that person he has no right to use them to get to the highway? The roads were there, and we had nothing to do with them. I am not trying to slam the previous government, but the permit was probably issued when it was in power. The roads have been there for a long time. Perhaps it was issued when Mr. Pearson was the Government Leader. I do not know when those roads were built. One does not tear roads out and say there is no access.
If someone wished to built a frontage road, I suppose we would even consider building two accesses on to the highway, but we are not going to pay for an access road from every piece of property.
Mr. McDonald: They are not going to pay for any of the accesses, according to this policy. According to the policy of the previous Minister, you should not pay for a single access. Nor should you cut deals that breach the spirit of this policy. That is presumably the case. The Minister says that the old accesses were there, and the department did not like them. It would be nice to speak with the people who were actually involved in the decisions, but I know that is not going to happen. I still do not understand the mind-set of the people who approved the financial arrangement - not the design, because, according to the policy, I would have thought the department would have said, "Listen, if we thought that the existing accesses were unsafe, we would do something about it. If we thought that the developer was going to produce more accesses that were more unsafe, we would do something about it. If we thought the developer should construct something of a different arrangement, we would have told him to go ahead and do that. This is the design. Do it, and pay for it. It is your property, you want access; we want a safe highway. You pay for it." There is clearly a disagreement that is not going to be resolved.
Mr. Harding: I have to enter into this discussion and debate on behalf of my constituent. This issue has been raised by me on several occasions. I feel very badly about the type of answer that my constituent has received from the Minister. In both cases, my communications on November 1, 1993, and April 11, 1994, from the former Minister of Community and Transportation Services basically left my constituent in a quandary. In that case, rather than the Minister's open-road policy, which he seems to espouse now where accesses are not something under the control of the Yukon government, if they had not given the taxpayers' money to the individual - the developer - they would have had all these accesses springing up on the highway.
My constituent, who is a very small businessman trying to eke out an existence cutting timber and sawing up logs on the south side of the Campbell Highway, has been told that he cannot have access to the highway. He has been told that he has to do some pretty substantive work to cut back banks and improve the access to the Robert Campbell Highway.
He was also told that the cost of this work, according to a former Minister, would be about $700 in clearing-equipment rental costs and that a culvert would not be required. My constituent feels that the cost might be more. However, even if it is $700, that is fairly substantial for someone who is basically trying to eke out a living in an industry that is in the early stages of development, particularly in the area where my constituent operates.
I asked, on two separate occasions, for some leniency and cooperation from the government. Various government people visited my constituent to talk about the access, but insisted on the policy that there would be no access for my constituent if he did not bring into effect these access improvements.
The departmental policy issued to my constituent was very clear about that. Now I understand that we have an issue where an arrangement has been made by another developer or businessman that involves accesses. The government's legitimacy for its action and justification is based on the fact that they feel that, had they not provided some monies to this developer from the government, they would have had more accesses than were acceptable - I think the Minister said eight. Our point is simple. In the case of my constituent, access was denied. The justification for the action taken by this government in the case of this particular person, was that accesses on to the highway would have cropped up, and we would have had eight.
Given that there seems to be some flexibility in this policy, depending on who the person is, I would like to ask the Minister if he is prepared to reconsider this particular matter and aid my constituent with the work of getting this access completed, which he has been requesting since 1993?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is not even the same situation at all. No, I am not prepared to change the situation.
Mr. Harding: I beg to differ with the Minister. It is somewhat of an analogous situation. Part of the justification the Minister gave for his action with the taxpayers' money was that he felt that, if they did not do this work or help to pay for this work on behalf of the developer, they would have too many accesses. He mentioned that there would be eight. We pointed out that the Minister could deny accesses. He then said he could not deny some of them, but the fact remains that he could have denied some. So we have maintained all along that the Minister's justification in this area, given the fact that he has the right to deny access permits, as he did with my constituent, is not a legitimate argument. In that way, the two matters are quite closely related.
I would like to ask the Minister, and I hope he gives me a better answer this time, if he would be prepared to consider another arrangement with my constituent, given that it involves the issue of access, which he brought up, surrounding the development we have been talking about at MacRae.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We did not deny the gentleman access. We simply said we would not pay for it in this case. We are just playing around here because, number one, they could come out on an access that has been there for years and years and years; all we did was have them make a deal so that we could have the Yukon land on the same right-of-way as the rest of that property.
Mr. Harding: So, the government says that my constituent could have access. If no work is done, does my constituent still have access to the highway in the old area?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: If the superintendent in the area says it is not a danger to the highway, he can have his access in there, but we will not pay for it.
Mr. Harding: There you go. The government says he can have access, but it will not help out, although they helped someone else out. It is an inconsistent policy. The government is stating that he cannot have access unless this work is undertaken.
In one instance the government helps arrange a deal involving access. The Member introduced the issue of access into debate by claiming that that is justification for his action. Now, he says that for my constituent - a poor guy trying to eke out a meagre existence in this fledgling industry - he is not going to do anything.
I find it extremely disturbing that that kind of tone would be taken by that Minister and the previous Minister. As the Member got up to speak the last time, I was reading the letter of April 11, 1994, which says quite clearly that the initial access location applied for was unsafe. That certainly implies that government would not allow him to use that route as an access route on to the highway. Therefore, it is saying he can have the access, but it is not going to help him out with it, so we are right back to square one.
I am asking the Minister if he will reconsider this, and will he see if he can work out some alternate arrangement with my constituent, just as he worked out another arrangement with another developer involving the issue of access?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: No, I will not.
Mr. Harding: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is not the same situation. If they looked at the maps, they would know that. They are just playing games.
Mr. Harding: I am sure this is not a game to my constituent. I did not write letters to the Department of Community and Transportation Services on behalf of my constituent, talk with him on the phone, talk to the Ministers, and raise the matter in the Legislature because I think it is a game.
This is a serious issue to my constituent, who is trying to provide some economic diversification and work in his community. He is trying to foster some kind of a positive economic climate in the community other than the mine, which we presently have to rely upon, but he is getting absolutely no support from this government. He gets a negative reaction whenever he tries to talk to the government about what he needs to help his particular business.
This is supposed to be a government that supports roads to resources and business. Obviously the Members opposite, and particularly the Minister who professes to be a big supporter of business, are only prepared to support some businesses. I think that is an incredibly bad thing for Yukoners, who want to have a level playing field. They want to know that when their concerns are raised, the government will look at them in the same way as they would look at the concerns of anyone else. In this case, a deal involving access roads was cut with people who are obviously closer to the government than my constituent, and that is unfortunate.
My constituent is a hard-working individual who wants to build his business and employ people from the area. Unfortunately, this government is giving him no support, and that is a very sad thing.
If the Minister is not going to answer, I intend to follow up on another issue involving the same constituent, which has to do with the issue of roads. Today, the Minister said, in response to a question from the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, that if the road proposed by the developer went on Commissioner's lands, the government would be prepared to enter into some type of an arrangement. The Minister is shaking his head. What did he say, then?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I said, "If it goes by Commissioner's land". It would certainly not be up to a private individual to build a road there. It had to go past Commissioner's land to get on to the access road. We can sell that property to any individual, who will then have a right-of-way to come on to the road using the same access being used by all of the other property owners there, and there are about 13 lots.
Mr. Harding: My constituent is interested in some road development. Certainly, some of that road development will border on some of the Commissioner's lands and some lots. I am not too sure of the relevance of the distinction between the Commissioner's lands for sale and lands not for sale. If my constituent proposes to carry out some road work, and there is some border alongside the Commissioner's lands that would cause my constituent to have to reroute or redirect his road, would the government then be prepared to consider entering into an arrangement as it did with that other developer?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We would have to look at it. If there is a market for the land, then we would look at the situation.
Mr. Harding: How do they ascertain whether or not there is a market for the land? Why does it have to be land that has to be readily available for sale?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: If we have it reserved for something in particular, then it would be our land. If it is being held in the Commissioner's name to be sold, then we would have to look at the situation. I have not seen any maps from the individual about whom he is talking. All I have seen is the letter that was handed to me today.
Mr. Harding: I will forward, in the interest of resolving this matter for my constituent and putting an end to this subject, some correspondence to the Minister and to his department, so that perhaps we might be able to get this issue resolved, which is precisely my aim. I hope that is the aim of the Minister. It is certainly the aim of my constituent.
I also have a question regarding road development and roads to resources in the Department of Community and Transportation Services. This government has espoused a belief, at least philosophically, that they are prepared to enter into arrangements with developers who want to put roads and infrastructure into areas of the Yukon. They are prepared to enter into this arrangement pending certain criteria. I have a constituent who wants to develop some road work just east of Faro, south of the Robert Campbell Highway. He is hoping to ascertain some support from the Yukon government. He is prepared to use his equipment to do it, but he would like to see some surveying and permitting authorization beforehand from the Government of the Yukon. Would the Minister be prepared to entertain such an arrangement?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We do not have a roads-to- resources program in the department. If the Member has a project, Economic Development may be able to provide the money to do the survey.
Mr. Harding: Given what happened with the other developer and the reference by the Minister to Commissioner's lands and roads that are adjacent to Commissioner's land, causing a developer's workers to make alternate routes, I tried to relate it to Community and Transportation Services.
Is the Minister telling me that there is nothing available in his department in terms of programming or arrangements, such as were made with the developer in MacRae, which would aid my constituent in developing a road of this nature?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: No, we do not do roads to resources any more.
Mr. Harding: Prior to asking the question about this road, the Minister told me he would be prepared to entertain a presentation from my constituent if the conditions were similar to those of the development deal at MacRae. Can I take the commitment I thought the Minister just made to me back to my constituent?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: For the third time, I said we would look at it.
Mr. Harding: The Minister then told me there was nothing available to aid my constituent on the road work I spoke about.
Perhaps the Minister is confused. Perhaps the fact that I phrased it as a "roads-to-resources issue" has the Minister confused. It is going to be road used for resources, but there is also other potential in the area.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I said we would look at it when we had more information.
Ms. Moorcroft: As the Minister knows, I am still waiting for some information, but I do have some questions in other areas.
We have made the case that the closing of the Tuchitua camp is a bad idea because highway safety will be jeopardized. When I was in Ross River and Watson Lake and even in Teslin, I heard that people in those towns are concerned about the highway camp being closed. There are approximately 10 travellers a day who use the Campbell Highway and who are, most often, First Nation members - trappers and loggers - and people travelling to see family. With the Faro mine opening, there is a very real possibility that suppliers are taking the long route around, which is an extra 300 miles one way.
The talking signs announce road conditions, but they do not really provide the same kind of coverage that maintenance on the road would. There has been a very outspoken critic of the closure -besides the Opposition - and that is Ernie Leach in Watson Lake. I had the pleasure of being in Watson Lake to hear Mr. Leach and the MLA for the area having quite a debate about the letter that the MLA wrote about the highway camp closure. Mr. Leach wanted a copy of the letter. An MLA wrote to the Minister about it, who says he does not know anything about it, he had not seen the letter, but that he would investigate the matter. I did hear Mr. Devries state that he would provide a copy of the letter that he wrote to Mr. Leach. Can I ask the Minister if he can update us on that at all?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I am not quite sure what I am supposed to provide an update about, but if it is the road, on Friday I talked with the mayor, one of the councillors and the town manager, who happened to be up in our office. They are very happy with the condition of the road. They say the trucks are using it, and they did not indicate that any trucks were avoiding it. They are all using that road and had intended to in the first place. I also talked to one of the truckers about two weeks ago; he makes three trips a week up there and is quite happy with the condition of the road.
Ms. Moorcroft: I just told the Minister about the commitment I heard Mr. Devries make to provide his constituent with a copy of the letter he had written about the road camp closure. I am asking the Minister now if he can tell me whether he has been able to ascertain who received that letter and whether he is willing to provide a copy to the Watson Lake constituent who is looking for it.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: If it is a letter from Mr. Leach, I did not receive it. If it is one from the MLA for Watson Lake, it would have to be up to him whether or not he would want it released.
Ms. Moorcroft: It is clear the Minister is not going to be able to help us out on that one; perhaps I will just have to take it up with the MLA in another forum.
Last night, I was asking some questions about the Municipal Act and about the issue that has been raised about a discrepancy in the Municipal Act, which states that any 10 persons who qualify as taxpayers can make a proposal to change municipal boundaries, and any Indian band that represents at least 25 persons who are eligible to vote in a band election and who would qualify as electors can bring forward a proposal to deal with changing boundaries. That is the general language in the Municipal Act.
What I was inquiring of the Minister last night was whether or not he thinks that is fair.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I thought we answered that question last night. Twenty-five First Nations people signed a petition to change it. The petition has to contain the signatures of 10 taxpayers. That is all that I can say; it is in the Municipal Act and I am not prepared to say anything more about it. The government has not received any suggestions to amend the act.
Mr. Joe: I have a short question for the Minister. Why do 25 percent of the people have to be counted before the Municipal Act can be changed? What about the rest of the people?
How does the Minister see the people working together some time in the future? They had no problem with the land claim. The only stumbling block we will run into is in the Municipal Act, and something has to be changed in order for people to work together.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: If I thought making changes to the Municipal Act would get people to work together I would be very, very happy to do it. Since I have been in this position, I have tried to get the First Nations and the town council to work together. I have to respect both the town council and the municipality and the chief of the First Nations. One group lives on one side of the river and one group on the other side. I will be the first to admit that they are not getting along.
I hope that by working with them and meeting with them to make decisions about the roads, that we can get them working together. I do not have the answers. Maybe if the Member has the answer, he can talk to me some time and tell me how to do it.
Mr. Joe: I think they are working together. Somehow the village council has had its hands tied. That is what we have to work on. We need to change the Municipal Act so that the people can work together in the future. That is what we need.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: To start with, I do not know what changes they want to make to the Municipal Act. Nobody has ever told me what they want. They keep saying that they cannot make changes, but they can. If the Executive Council figures that they represent at least 25 First Nations people, they can change it. Nobody has told us what they want to change. Maybe it will come up in the new AYC draft for amendments to the legislation.
Mr. Joe: I know a bit about the Municipal Act. When you really get into what is related to the First Nation and its business, they are coming pretty close together. They have to pretty well stay away from each other. They are having problems with the act.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I certainly would like to talk with the Member some time to see just what the First Nation wants. As I understand it, it is not located within the municipality. They are outside of it. I do not think that the Member is saying that the First Nation wants to become part of the municipality. Most First Nations do not want to do that, although sometimes the First Nation owns land within a municipality. For instance, the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation has a village that is within the boundaries of, but it does not belong to, the municipality. That has been accepted, and it seems to be working fine. I just really do not know what is wanted at Carmacks, and I wish someone could tell me. Perhaps we could find an answer. I have not been able to find one yet.
Mr. Penikett: Is it not correct that there are some inequities that have been brought to the Minister's attention, including the fact that, as I understand it, the municipality receives recreation grants, for example, on the basis of the population of both the municipality and the band. However, the band gets no benefit from them - only the municipality does. Is that not correct?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: No, that is not correct. Municipalities do not receive a recreation grant from us. They have to take the funds for that out of their municipal grant. Unincorporated communities receive recreation grants from us. For instance, the areas of Selkirk, Vuntut Gwitchin and Kluane are three that now receive it, the same as Beaver Creek does. However, Haines Junction and other incorporated municipalities do not receive a recreation grant from us.
Mr. Penikett: The Minister may be right, but I recall reading media reports to the effect that there was a complaint from the Carmacks-Little Salmon First Nation that, for some purposes, the municipality was including the population of the First Nation with the population that lived within the municipal boundary for the calculation of monies coming from the territorial government. Is the Minister saying this is absolutely not the case?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: This probably happened a long time ago when the legislation was first passed up and before Carmacks was a municipality.
Any recreation money they have comes out of their municipal grant, which is legislated in this House. Mind you, groups from municipalities can still apply to the lotteries fund, the same as the First Nation or anyone else can, but the actual council has to take any recreation money it needs out of the municipal grant it receives from us.
Mr. Penikett: Is it not true that when the municipality was created in Carmacks there were not enough people on the non-native side of the river to constitute a municipality without including the First Nation people in the calculation?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes, that was done when the original eight or nine municipalities were formed. I was in the House when the municipal grant was worked out. I think the Honourable Mr. Byblow worked very hard on that. Perhaps I am wrong; the Leader of the Official Opposition is shaking his head.
That formula was created and those municipalities were formed. I suspect a new municipality coming in would have to meet the regulations, but those original municipalities were put in ahead of that time.
Mr. Penikett: I am not talking about calculating grants. I am going to have to object to this practice of former Ministers answering questions about current Ministers' responsibilities. It is completely unparliamentary. We are making nonsense of parliamentary procedure.
I am asking the Minister a question. I am asking about grant formulas. Is it not correct that the population of the First Nation was included in the calculation of the population of the village when it was first created? In that sense - I do not know if the departments ever had a legal opinion - the village may not have originally been legally constituted, because the First Nation did not consent to the inclusion of their population in that number at all, as far as I know.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is correct that that happened at that time. However, I would suspect that if one looks at any of the other municipalities, the same thing happened.
Mr. Penikett: I admit that it happened at that time. However, it is, at least from some people's point of view, still a problem. It is certainly a problem that will have to be faced whenever we get around to negotiating self-government agreements with the Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation.
What is the position of the department at that negotiating table, faced with a First Nation that is going to assist with self-government for its own people and lands, which will have the effect of reducing Carmack's population below the minimum allowed for a village? What is the department's view of the status of the municipality at that point?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I could refer to Faro. We carried Faro when it did not have the right number. I am not at all prepared to close any municipality that has been around as long as Carmacks has.
Mr. Penikett: The Minister should listen carefully. I am not proposing that. This is a Chamber where the dialogue is about policy, not personal pique. I am trying to find out what the policy of the department will be. How will it deal with that situation? Is the Minister considering amendments to the Municipal Act? The Municipal Act is a law, and we are supposed to respect the law. It sets certain standards and criteria for being a village, a town, a hamlet or a city. If we are faced with a situation where that status is put in doubt, we obviously have to have a policy response. It cannot just be that we are not going to change things. That is not a policy response. How are we going to deal with it?
If, for example, the municipal boundaries are going to include First Nation land and land where there is self-government, obviously it is a matter of some complexity that will have to be negotiated. What is the department's position as it approaches those negotiations?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There would have to be consultation with the First Nations. If they want to be a First Nation government - I am not sure they all want that, but that would be their privilege - we would have to have consultation with them. I presume that if they wanted to split away, we would have to amend the legislation to suit them.
Mr. Penikett: That is almost certainly true, but it does not answer my question about policy. Let me ask this question about policy: should a First Nation, such as the Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation, upon the achievement of self-government, decide that it also wanted to incorporate itself as a village - something that I believe it could do - would it be able to access grants from the block fund established by the territorial government?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: If it was constituted as a municipality in the same way as others are, yes. We would have to adjust the formula and, I presume, bring it back to the Legislature in order to adjust it.
Mr. Penikett: The Minister has indicated it may happen in more than one community in this territory. How is he going to deal with a situation where some First Nations people may have been included in a municipality without their consent or where people may be residents of a First Nation community that wishes to also become a municipality but an existing municipality incorporates some of its boundaries? I assume this is an issue that has come up before now and I would like to know the department's approach in addressing this matter.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We actually have not had any First Nations bring this up. Carmacks did not want to be inside the municipality. In Champagne-Aishihik, they are in the municipality but they run their own affairs and seem to be able to work it out pretty well. They are both inside the municipality.
Mr. Penikett: I would expect that most First Nations would not want to contemplate becoming municipalities until they have achieved self-government, and they would probably only want to achieve municipal status, which gives them less power than self-government, in addition to the self-government powers if there was some financial benefit to them - in other words, if they could access YTG funding. If they did, it would reduce the pool of funds available for other municipalities and significant policy questions would arise from that.
Has the department examined this question at all? Has it prepared itself for negotiations on this subject?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: They have done some background work on it but there has been no pressure from any First Nation wanting to do that at the present time.
Mr. Penikett: Can I ask this precise question: on the matter we asked about earlier concerning the inclusion of First Nation populations within municipal calculations for the purposes of establishing a municipality either as a hamlet, a village or town or whatever, has the Department of Community and Transportation Services obtained a legal opinion on any of the consequences or difficulties arising from that history?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We have not gotten into one yet. The Village of Carmacks was legally established through Order-in-Council 1984/309. That could possibly be legally challenged in court.
Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to get back to some more specific questions regarding the Municipal Act and the concerns that we started out with here. I will try to summarize it and explain it simply. A municipality may apply to expand its boundaries. The act sets out who may appeal to the Yukon Municipal Board against such a proposal to expand boundaries. The act defines 10 taxpayers as being eligible to petition against the boundary expansion or 25 members of an Indian band who are eligible to vote in a band election and who would qualify as electors in the area proposed to be added to the municipality.
If a municipality wanted to expand its boundaries, and there would be a number of First Nations who would then be part of that expanded boundary area, they could petition against the expansion. Does the Minister think it is fair for the act to set out 10 taxpayers in one category who have an avenue of appeal, and 25 members of an Indian band as a second category? That is how it goes. Does the Minister think that is fair?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: That is not the way we read it at all. The way we read it, it says, "An Indian band that, in the opinion of the Executive Council Member, represents at least 25 persons who are eligible to vote in a band election, and who would qualify as electors in the proposed area to be added to the municipality..." We understand that to mean that any one or two or three people, as long as they represent 25 people, can make an objection.
Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to thank the Minister for his answer. It certainly clarifies a lot.
I have to point out that these questions were raised last night, and we have just spent the last hour going around this again before we could get an answer. Is the Minister of the opinion that a First Nation qualifies to appeal to the Yukon Municipal Board as long as it has 25 members?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes, that is the way I interpret it.
Ms. Moorcroft: I have a couple of questions regarding land use planning. I know the department is working on bringing information back on land development and the land application process. I want to put these questions on the record in case the Minister does not have the information at his fingertips and the department has to come back with the information.
The First Nations final agreement implementation plans call for a regional land use planning council. A regional land-use planning commission will be set up in the Yukon. The council will consist of a nominee from the Council for Yukon Indians, a nominee of the Yukon and one of Canada.
Will the Yukon nominee to the Yukon land use planning councils, which will establish and develop regional land use plans, be a professional planner? Will that person be a public servant?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The department has not really thought much about whether or not the person would be a public servant.
Ms. Moorcroft: Has the Minister or the department given any thought to how existing land planners and regional planners will work with the Yukon land use planning councils?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Actually, we do not carry out regional planning. That is carried out by Renewable Resources. If there is a community in the area, or something of that nature, we take over and conduct that planning.
Ms. Moorcroft: Does the Minister mean that there will be no work between the land use planners and the regional land use planning commission? I would still like him to clarify that for me.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We will be feeding information back and forth between the departments. The departments share information very closely in this area.
Ms. Moorcroft: We have certainly argued before that land development around the territory does have an effect on settlement lands and self-government. For example, the recent changes in an order-in-council that set out two new categories of zoning - the multiple rural residential zoning and commercial general zoning - will have an effect on the First Nations land in the Laberge area.
Has the Minister been in contact with the Kwanlin Dun and the Ta'an Kwach'an about the new regulations? If so, would the Minister tell us what he heard from them?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I have been in touch with Ms. Shirley Adamson. I have not been able to contact Ms. Pat Joe, although I have tried about four times. She is busy with some land claims meetings. I try every day and I hope to eventually reach her.
Ms. Moorcroft: Could the Minister tell us what the position of the Ta'an Kwach'an was on the new regulations to amend the interim Whitehorse periphery development area?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: No, that was a private conversation. I am quite prepared to keep that between us.
Ms. Moorcroft: Can I ask the Minister if he would be prepared in the future to contact First Nations before orders-in-council that amend zoning go through?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: They are consulted even before we go to Cabinet.
Ms. Moorcroft: I do not think that was the case here. Earlier, the Minister indicated that that was not the case. I think it is important that the Minister engage in discussions with the First Nations and with nearby municipalities before zoning changes are made so there are no allegations of decisions being made on the basis of politics and not on the basis of good planning.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The department did consult them, and I am completely satisfied that that was adequate. Nevertheless, I have asked that consultations with First Nations be more thorough on anything having to do with the Whitehorse area.
Ms. Moorcroft: In January of last year, we received a legislative return regarding the Ta'an Kwach'an planning exercise. The Ta'an Kwach'an was looking for planning assistance from the Yukon government. Can I ask the Minister if those discussions have been completed? At the time, it was thought that the planning exercise would require three to five weeks to complete, and would use some work from a planner or the land development coordinator from Department of Community and Transportation Services. Has that been completed?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We have been working on it. We should have some information about Jackfish Bay; we are going through the file right now.
Ms. Moorcroft: One of the returns that was just provided to us was a summary of the status of the Yukon College access design and the construction update for the new access road. The information is that completion is scheduled for March 31, 1995. I believe that means that the design completion date is March 31, 1995. I would like to ask the Minister if he has any idea when the road will be completed and if we might be able to have a drawing or sketch - not engineering plans - of the proposed route?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes, we will get plans for the Member. The road will not be completed in this budget.
Chair: Is there further general debate?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Mr. Chair, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 4.
Motion agreed to
Chair: We will move to Bill No. 3, the supplementaries.
Bill No. 3 - Third Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued
Community and Transportation Services - continued
Chair: Is there any debate on the line items? We are on page 16.
On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures
On Office of the Deputy Minister
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The $3,000 is for emergency measures for a response to the flood in Dawson City at the Rock Creek subdivision, resulting from an ice jam on the Klondike River.
Office of the Deputy Minister in the amount of $3,000 agreed to
On Transportation Division
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The increase in the transportation division was $31,000, required to establish the Watson Lake Airport, community aerodrome radio service, cars, $9,000 and an observer communication contract of $22,000 for the summer months. There was $13,000 to cover the cost of the Old Crow observer communication contract wage adjustment, retroactive back to 1992-93.
A sum of $42,000 in additional funding is required to cover severance pay for two employees being laid off at the Cassiar weigh-scale station when it closed on October 31, 1994. A sum of $37,000 is to proceed with a public consultation strategy for the Motor Vehicles Act review over the fall and winter months, including printing material and media involvement. This work is being advanced from 1995-96.
A sum of $16,000 is resulting from $10,000 for a new Whitehorse weigh-scale station for the increased cost of water, sewage, janitorial service and snow removal. There is $6,000 for travel and vehicle rental costs for the Watson Lake and Haines Junction mobile safety officer. A sum of $41,000, due to additional surface repairs, was required on the Kusawa Lake Road.
A sum of $40,000 was to cover the cost of sanding, snow removal and glacier control on the South Klondike Highway. The agreement with Alaska did not expire until April 15, 1994. Expenditures are 100-percent recoverable. There is $11,000, due to unexpected projects required on Mount Nansen Road to do draining work.
The reductions of $21,000 were savings at the Burwash Airport due to observer-communicator contract being renewed at a lower rate and the hours of work during May and June being less, due to a vacant position. There was $16,000 in saving for observer-communicator, supply and utilities at the Ross River Airport, due to the planned closure of the community aerodrome radio service on January 1, 1995.
A sum of $15,000 was due to one of the national safety code inspector positions being vacant for four months. There was $86,000 due to the required application of calcium being less than anticipated for the Shallow Bay Road and the Hunker-Granville-Sulphur loop. The $39,000 of crushed gravel, originally for the Annie Lake Road, will be charged to the South Klondike Highway, where it was used.
There is a $3,000 savings on BST for the road to Miles Canyon as the contract for the reclaimer does both the rip and reshaping at the same time. This brings it to a total of $21,000.
Ms. Moorcroft: That sounded like a lot more than $21,000 to me when it was going by. For a moment, I thought the Minister was also reading the capital expenditures.
With respect to the transportation division, I note that the recoveries for airports are reduced by $22,000. Why are they projecting this reduction? It is on page 16.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Is the Member talking about the $21,000 that we are asking for a vote on in the supplementary?
Ms. Moorcroft: I am asking about the recovery. It shows $22,000 under the recovery for airports. We do not go through the recoveries line by line, so I am asking why there is a projection for the reduction of $22,000 in airports. I understand that the recoveries on airports is federal money that comes through for Transport Canada functions or for negotiating the airport transfers.
Perhaps the Minister could explain to me what the recovery is for and why it has been reduced.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It adds up to $31,000. I did not catch the $22,000. There is $9,000 required to establish a Watson Lake airport community aerodrome radio service, and there is an observer communicator contract for $22,000 for the summer months, when we have another person in Watson Lake.
It was moved right out of that department and over into airports. So I will give that detail. There is $23,000 in additional recovery from Transport Canada for the Watson Lake community aerodrome radio service and observer. That is an increase. The reduction is $23,000 less in recoveries from Transport Canada for the Burwash airport - $21,000 is due to the observer-communicator contract renewal at a lower rate and with fewer hours of work for May and June, and $2,000 due to main estimates calculation having included recovery for ground-to-ground communication twice; $14,000 less in recoveries from Transport Canada for the Ross River airport due to the planned closure of CARS on January 1, 1995; and $8,000 in minor reductions at various airports due to the observer communicator contract renewals at a lower rate.
That adds up to a $22,000 reduction.
Ms. Moorcroft: Did the Minister already give us the information on the additional $42,000 recovery on the South Klondike Highway? I heard him giving us some figures on the South Klondike Highway. Did they cover the recoveries?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is an increase to reflect the recovery from the State of Alaska for maintenance to the South Klondike Highway from April 1 to April 15 - a $42,000 recovery.
Does the Member want the weigh scale figures?
Ms. Moorcroft: Yes please.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: For the weigh scale, there is $1.00 budgeted in recovery for a portion of the restitution ordered by the court to be paid for the theft of a motor vehicle in 1992.
Transportation Division in the amount of $21,000 agreed to
On Municipal and Community Affairs Division
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is $10,000 for mosquito control, due to an increase in the application contract, and unit materials. Vectobac and helicopter time requirements were greater than anticipated. There is $4,000 for the cost of a Southern Alberta Institute of Technology course in public safety held in Whitehorse in March 1994 that has not occurred, and therefore requires funding 1994-95.
Municipal and Community Affairs Division in the amount of $4,000 agreed to
On Total Other O&M Programs
Total of Other O&M Programs in the amount of nil agreed to
Total O&M Expenditures in the amount of $28,000 agreed to
On Capital Expenditures
On Office of the Deputy Minister
On Emergency Measures
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is an increase of $12,000 for renovation of the second floor of the Lynn building to accommodate improvements to the emergency measures operation centre. This project is done as a winter employment item.
Emergency Measures in the amount of $12,000 agreed to
On 911 Implementation
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is an increase of $51,000 revoted to complete work from 1993-94, which consists of the purchase of peripheral equipment, such as interface equipment, telephone sets, et cetera, and advertising.
Ms. Moorcroft: I am wondering why there was no money put in the budget to start out with for communications on 911 implementation. I would have thought that would have been part of the overall project.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It was in the 1993-94 budget, and we revoted it into this budget.
Ms. Moorcroft: Will this budget also cover the stickers that we were talking about putting up in the communities, indicating what the emergency numbers are for communities that do not have access to the 911 system?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes, it will. The department is working on those and they should be out very shortly.
Ms. Moorcroft: The Minister stated yesterday that the stickers could be put on the cover of a phone book. When the Member for Mayo-Tatchun and I requested this, after the ministerial statement was made announcing the implementation of the 911 system, it was suggested that the sticker actually affix to the cradle of the phone. Is this going to be a large sticker or will it be small enough to put on a phone?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is not really a large sticker. I will bring a sample to show the House.
Mr. Joe: I saw a sign advertising 911 near Little Fox Lake. Could the Minister advise me how I could find a phone in that area, in case of an emergency? Why is the sign there?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The signs were put there to advise people that they are now in an area where they can dial 911 in the case of an emergency, from any telephone.
Ms. Moorcroft: What was the cost of the signs? Was this cost included in the $51,000?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I will get the exact cost for the Member.
Ms. Moorcroft: I understand the 911 system now uses an automatic number identification so that when someone calls in, the phone number they are calling from is lit up at the receiver station. We have had some debate about the desirability of having an automatic location indicator. There are a number of people in rural locations who have a regular Whitehorse phone, but their location would not appear. Does the Minister know when that upgrade might take place to allow for an automatic location indicator?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We are waiting for Northwestel to update their records. I am not sure how long it will take.
911 Implementation in the amount of $51,000 agreed to
On Transportation Division
On Transportation Division Facilities
On Office Furniture, Equipment and Systems
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The $93,000 revote is to complete work from 1993-94 to implement the local area network component of the highway maintenance management system; $52,000 in additional funding is required to do accommodation improvement upgrade; $12,000 for the planning of building upgrade at 201 Range Road; $40,000 for accommodation improvement for highway maintenance at the central workshop; and $4,000 is required for additional office furniture at the new Whitehorse weigh scale.
Ms. Moorcroft: I had a couple of notes on the local area network. I had asked the Minister about that in general debate.
The local area network is to set up 14 computer work stations that can communicate with each other in this particular division. Do those work stations not have the PROFS computer system? I thought the PROFS system was available to all government computers, except for the Official Opposition offices.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Each garage in each area has a computer, or whatever you want to call it, on which they calculate their financial figures about how much it costs each day to run a grader, how many graders are out, and such things as that. It is not like the one that is in my office or your office. It is a system that keeps control of the vehicles and the work that is done each day. They tell me that when they get this perfect, they will be able to tell hour by hour where people are working and what equipment is out, what equipment has not been working that day, and things like that.
Ms. Moorcroft: Do those computers have PROFS and are they able to communicate via PROFS?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I do not think they have that yet, but they will have it once this is completed. They are still working to get all of their information into their computers, and it is not completely finished. It is a new project.
Ms. Moorcroft: So, the local area network will include PROFS when they are setting up the local area network - is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I think it will, but I had better get back to the Member on that because I am not quite sure how the information will get out to the communities.
Office Furniture, Equipment and Systems in the amount of $149,000 agreed to
On Major Facility Maintenance
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The sum of $65,000 has been allotted for winter work employment projects and various facilities as follows: $32,000 to replace overhead doors at Watson Lake grader station; $3,000 to repaint the interior; $7,000 to replace the subfloor at the Old Crow air terminal; $10,000 to repaint the interior of the Dawson grader station; $8,000 to repaint the interior of the sign shop; and $5,000 to repaint the first floor of the Lynn Building.
Major Facility Maintenance in the amount of $65,000 agreed to
On Highway Construction
On Alaska Highway
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is a $2,818,000 increase in reconstruction for kilometre 1008 to kilometre 1634; $528,000 for aggregate production in the Rancheria area at kilometre 1146 to 1161, which is required to surface and BST the road reconstructed in 1994-95; $20,000 to construct a stabilization berm at Big Creek at kilometre 1086 to limit further settlement and permit rebuilding to original grade; $2,270,000 for various winter work projects; $1,170,000 for aggregate production for kilometre 1056 to kilometre 1085 to surface and BST road construction in 1994-95; $200,000 to stabilize several slopes in the Swift River area that eroded during spring runoff, and $1,000 to do evacuation of large waste cuts at kilometre 1178, immediately south of Swift River and kilometre 1557, immediately west of Mendenhall River Bridge.
Ms. Moorcroft: I am not sure if this is the right line for this question, but the government recently purchased six new tandem dump trucks, which cost $648,000. I would like to know whether or not the price included staff training for machine operation and maintenance, a parts inventory necessary for repairs, the parts and service manuals, which, I believe, can cost as much as $1,000 each and specialty repair tools. Each highway camp that had a new dump truck would need these supplies. Were they included in the contract bid?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The Member asked quite a few questions. I will get back to her with that information. However, the major repairs are done in Whitehorse. Only minor repairs are done in the outlying district.
I will get back to the Member with the information about the tools and so on.
Ms. Moorcroft: Can the Minister tell me what they are using the six new tandem trucks for? Are they getting into full-blown road construction?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: They will replace older dump trucks. They have a dual purpose. They have a B-plough in front and an under-plough underneath. They are fixed up so that we can put a sander on them. That way, when they are cleaning the road, they can sand at the same time.
They can travel 50 or 60 kilometres per hour. The graders travelled at about 30 kilometres an hour. They can cover more ground faster.
In the summer, they can have trailers hooked up to them for BST stockpiling. They are used for stockpiling gravel because they dump - they are not belly-dumps. They are used almost year-round right now. The people from whom we bought the trucks have come to look at some of the extra things we put on them. They thought they looked a bit precarious. They appear to be quite successful, although some people think that they are much too fancy. However, I think they are the standard for these days.
Ms. Moorcroft: Are those six new trucks all stationed in Whitehorse or are they spread around the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Frequently they are in Whitehorse but another advantage they have is that we can move them to any camp we want, and they can be moved fairly quickly. In fact, I recall coming up the road when we made the circle trip to Watson Lake. We had the radio on; one was leaving Teslin to come to Swift River, and they were in contact with each other all the time. He came down there fairly fast and helped on the double dip around Swift River where there is a lot of snow.
Mr. Joe: As we are talking about highway construction, I just want to know if there are any plans for Tatchun Hill. For the last three or four years now, there has been no guardrail or anything. Every year it gets icy at times and very dangerous.
Does the government have any plans for that hill?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The hill in that area, as the Member will know, keeps sliding. We are watching it and hope the hill will settle down; after that, we will put some guards on it, but it keeps moving right now. The MLA is quite right; in all the years I have been driving up and down that road, the hill seemed to be moving around and they were always working on it. Until it quits sliding like that, there is not much good in putting guardrails up at all.
Mr. Joe: I have to agree with the Minister, but the sliding has to stop some time. I do not know how many times it has slid. I have been up and down there for a number of years. It is still very dangerous.
It is about 500 or 600 feet down from the top of that hill.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We are aware of that and we are watching it, but as long as it keeps sliding it is hardly worth putting any in right now, and they probably would not stay in place anyway.
Mr. Joe: When is the government going to put this in? We cannot wait forever.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I guess it will be as soon as we get back far enough into that hill so that the road will stop sliding. There is not much one can do about nature when it starts doing that. I admit that it is not very nice there, but there is no sense putting guardrails in if they are going to slide down the hill.
Mr. Cable: Is the $2.18 million referred to expected work or accellerated work? What did it involve? It includes slope stabilization and excavation of large waste cuts. Was that part of the road work plan for the year, or did something unexpected arise?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The winter works part of it is $2,270,000 for aggregated production from kilometre 1056 to 1085 to surface and BST road reconstruction in 1994-95. There is $200,000 to stabilize slopes in the Swift River area, which eroded during spring runoff, and $1,000 due to evacuation of a large waste cut.
The other winter works project was clearing a right-of-way in prepreparation for reconstruction at kilometre 1787 to 1800. Funding is 100-percent recoverable.
Alaska Highway in the amount of $12,131,000 agreed to
On Klondike Highway
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is $500,000 in additional funding for permafrost berming south of Stewart Crossing at kilometre 516 to 518, where numerous cracks were forming due to permafrost thawing.
Klondike Highway in the amount of $500,000 agreed to
On Campbell Highway
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is an increase of $100,000 for reconstruction on kilometre 427 to 600 for waste-cut work and to remove slide materials from a ditch at kilometre 554 to maintain drainage; $75,000 for reconstruction on kilometre 0 to Faro; $50,000 to replace a collapsed culvert at kilometre 386, 12 kilometres west of the Ross River cutoff, to provide drainage and prevent road washout; $25,000 for pre-engineering design at kilometre 393 Grew Creek, 19 kilometres west of the Ross River cutoff, related to potential Grew Creek ore haul, a reduction of $175,000.
Mr. Harding: The total reduction is $175,000. I had trouble keeping track of those figures. What the Minister said about the additions minus the $175,000 did not really add up, as far as I am concerned. Can the Minister try to clarify it a bit for me?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is an increase of $100,000 for reconstruction on kilometre 427 to 600 for waste-cut work and to remove slide materials from the ditch at kilometre 554 to maintain drainage; $75,000 for reconstruction from kilometre 0 to Faro; $50,000 to replace a collapsed culvert at kilometre 386, 12 kilometres west of the Ross River cutoff, to provide drainage and prevent road washout; $25,000 for pre-engineering and design at kilometre 393 Grew Creek, 19 kilometres west of the Ross River cutoff, related to the potential Grew Creek ore haul, and a $350,000 decrease in the reconstruction and BST paving, kilometre 0 to 50 project, as the scope of the work had been reduced because of the uncertainty of the Mount Hundere Mine, which is presently closed.
Mr. Harding: A $350,000 reduction and a $250,000 increase adds up to a $100,000 decrease in that line item. Did I miss something? I have the $100,000 increase, the $75,000 increase, the $50,000 increase, the $25,000 increase relating to surveying, and then a reduction of $350,000.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: No, it is a total increase of $175,000 and a reduction of $350,000, which gives one a reduction of $175,000.
Mr. Harding: I appreciate the Minister clarifying that for me. I have a question regarding how - what I would consider to be - capital work is calculated in either the O&M or the capital budget. In terms of road work - that is, surfacing through BST and other hard-surfacing techniques - would that be considered a capital or an operation and maintenance expenditure?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: BST for resurfacing old roads is calculated in the O&M budget. If it is a new project then it will be in the capital budget.
Mr. Harding: I appreciate the Minister clarifying that. I managed to send him some correspondence this year about the condition of the highway just out of Faro. There were some pretty solid improvements made there. I am not sure if they were planned or happened as a result of the letter, or if it was an action that had been considered prior to the letter by the government. I want to thank the department for getting to that improvement rather quickly.
There are also a number of other areas on the highway close to Faro that are going to need some work this year. I have also made pleas to the Minister for some capital intensive BST work. I say "capital'' because I have just been told that if it is new work, it is considered a capital expense.
Now that the Minister knows there is a serious production decision by the Anvil Range group, is he seriously considering putting some of the contingency fund he mentioned earlier to work for capital and O&M BST improvements on the highway, which has been accredited in this supplementary budget and the 1995-96 capital and O&M budgets?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Any improvements to the road will be in the capital budget.
Mr. Harding: I will ask him then, but I will just give him notice. I was hoping to get some information now about the Campbell Highway line, but I will ask him again when we get to the capital budget. That is fine.
Campbell Highway in the amount of an underexpenditure of $175,000 agreed to
Chair: Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess at this time?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We are dealing with Community and Transportation Services.
On Dempster Highway
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is $200,000 in additional funding for erosion protection and to replace collapsed culverts at kilometre 18 and 25 north of the Klondike Highway junction.
Dempster Highway in the amount of $200,000 agreed to
On Top of the World Highway
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is $200,000 additional funding for a pre-engineering and environmental impact study for a Yukon River bridge at Dawson City. The expenditure is expected to be 50-percent recoverable under the Canada/Yukon Transportation Infrastructure program.
There is $1,150,000 for acceleration of reconstruction of kilometres 60 to 105 due to funding being available from the delayed Freegold Road project in concurrence with Transport Canada, which is 50-percent recoverable under the Canada/Yukon Transportation Infrastructure program.
Ms. Moorcroft: I notice some pretty large increases. Some of the budgets have doubled and some have more than doubled in the line items covering highway construction. It is common for the supplementary budget to bring in large, additional expenditures on highways, such as these?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: On the Top of the World Highway, we did not pursue the Freegold Road any further with because we are not sure what the copper mine is going to do there. We transferred the money, and it is probably a rare case for money to be transferred like that.
Ms. Moorcroft: Was it $200,000 that the Minister had indicated for pre-engineering for the Dawson bridge, and could the Minister explain what that sum will be spent on?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is for the engineering design and for locating the bridge, should one be built. There has been nothing definite decided, one way or the other. We are simply trying to get a design. Then we will have to get the costs later.
Ms. Moorcroft: Will that cost $200,000?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes.
Top of the World Highway in the amount of $1,350,000 agreed to
On Silver Trail
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is an increase of $200,000 in additional funding for slide control at kilometre 3 to 7, as the Stewart River is eroding the toe of the road slope at kilometre 7. The placement of rip-rap is required to prevent further erosion.
Silver Trail in the amount of $200,000 agreed to
On Bridges - Numbered Highways
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is $500,000 allotted for painting the Yukon River bridge at Carmacks as the existing paint surface has deteriorated to the point where it no longer protects the steel from weathering; $50,000 each for Willow Creek and Tatchun Creek bridges to do pre-engineering and design as they have numerous structural deficiencies.
Bridges - Numbered Highways in the amount of $600,000 agreed to
On Other Roads
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The sum of $145,000 has been allotted for winter employment projects on Freegold Road reconstruction. Winter work to be done is: $55,000 for clearing road right-of-way in preparation for reconstruction of kilometre 17.8 to kilometre 21.6; $90,000 for crushing and stockpiling of gravel for resurfacing and reconstruction of kilometre 0 to kilometre 10; and a reduction of $1,150,000 due to work slowed down on the Freegold Road pending production decision by Carmacks Copper on Williams Creek.
Other Roads in the amount of an underexpenditure of $1,005,000 agreed to
On Transportation Maintenance Facilities
On Miscellaneous Branch Facilities
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The sum of $54,000 has been allotted for employment projects and highway maintenance facilities as follows: miscellaneous retrofits, doors, lighting, energy, et cetera, on various north Alaska Highway grader stations; $20,000 for window upgrade on the Teslin grader station; $3,000 to replace main doors in Watson Lake grader station; $7,000 on Watson Lake workshop; $3,000 to replace parts, rooms and windows at Dawson workshop; $4,000 to supply and install carpets at Stewart Crossing living complex; $10,000 to supply and install a humidifier system at Ogilvie living complex; and $4,000 to replace worn flooring at the central workshop.
Miscellaneous Branch Facilities in the amount of $54,000 agreed to
On Transportation Equipment
On Sundry Equipment
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The $200,000 is a winter work employment project for the installation of an overhead crane in the welding workshop in the Marwell area. This crane is required to improve workers' safety conditions.
Sundry Equipment in the amount of $200,000 agreed to
On Transportation Regulatory Facilities
On Whitehorse Weigh Station Relocation
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The increase of $318,000 is a revote to complete guard and approach weigh scale pit construction and scale and lighting system installation. The $15,000 in additional funding is required for the relocation of telephones, computers and VHF hook-ups to the new station location.
Ms. Moorcroft: I think the Minister has brought forward a legislative return on this, but I do not have it in front of me. Can the Minister tell me what the complete cost for the Whitehorse weigh station relocation was?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The total cost was $1,000,001.
Whitehorse Weigh Station Relocation in the amount of $333,000 agreed to
On Municipal and Community Affairs Division
On Public Safety
On Office Furniture, Equipment and Systems
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The $9,000 is due to the fact that the PCV file data base originally planned for tracking statistically and monitoring information on permits and inspection was not adequate. A more complex system is therefore required to be developed.
Office Furniture, Equipment and Systems in the amount of $9,000 agreed to
On Major Facility Maintenance
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is $8,000 for the following winter work projects: repaint interior of the Ross River firehall for $6,000; the supply and installation of an auto-dialer to warn of low heating temperatures at the Klondike Valley firehall for $2,000. There is $4,000 due to the survey of firehall maintenance requirements, which shows that there is more work needed than originally anticipated, such as the replacement of the firehall bay doors.
Ms. Moorcroft: Does the survey of needed firehall maintenance include all of the firehalls in the Yukon, or is that specifically for the Klondike Valley and Ross River firehalls?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is a miscellaneous amount for firehalls throughout the Yukon.
Major Facility Maintenance in the amount of $12,000 agreed to
On Fire Protection
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is a $25,000 revote for the Burwash firehall construction to complete the design and property acquisition. There is a $10,000 revote for Golden Horn training room to complete the exterior construction that was halted in 1993-94 due to weather conditions.
Fire Protection in the amount of $35,000 agreed to
On Recreation Facilities
On Office Furniture, Equipment and Systems
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is $7,000 required to purchase a new photocopier for the sports and recreation branch, as the existing copier was old and did not last beyond August 1994.
Office Furniture, Equipment and Systems in the amount of $7,000 agreed to
On Recreation Facilities
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The amount of a $12,000 revote is to address a number of capital projects identified by the Ross River Community Association in order to bring the Ross River community up to standard. The amount of $20,000 is required for structural engineering to do an assessment on the Beaver Creek curling rink foundation problems. This project was done as a winter employment item.
Recreation Facilities in the amount of $32,000 agreed to
On Community Services
On Office Furniture, Equipment and Systems
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The amount of $5,000 is required for a computer and software for the assistant deputy minister secretary position.
Office Furniture, Equipment and Systems in the amount of $5,000 agreed to
On Community Planning
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The amount of $60,000 is due to a photographic and mapping
project; $40,000 is the result of the project being transferred from land central service
and $20,000 has been requested to produce a digital orthophoto of the City of Whitehorse.
This portion of the project is being done as a winter employment program. The amount of a
$50,000 revote is require to develop a plan specific to the Ibex hamlet, which was unable
to be completed in 1993-94 due to requests coming in later in the fiscal year.
Ms. Moorcroft: Can the Minister elaborate on the $60,000 for the photographic mapping service. When the funds are being spent on community planning, is it all in the Whitehorse area? Is it for the municipality?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We do aerial photography, and most of it is in the Whitehorse area, but we will go to municipalities if they have certain community plans they want worked on.
Ms. Moorcroft: Is this line item specifically for photographic mapping service, or are other forms of community planning covered in this line item?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Maybe I should read the reductions at the same time. Sorry about that; I am getting a little dizzy getting up and down here.
The reductions are $15,000 less required for Carcross area planning, as no decision has been made when to proceed with the projects. The request came to not proceed with the project until there are enough funds to allow startup. A sum of $5,000 had been saved on the Mount Lorne local area development regulation consultant contract. A sufficient amount of information had already been gathered in the planning stages. Does that answer the question, or does the Member still have a question?
Ms. Moorcroft: I still have a question. I was asking the Minister if the community planning in this line item only covered photographic mapping service. He just indicated, in the reductions, that there was a reduction on the consultant's work for the Hamlet of Mount Lorne. That would indicate to me that it does not just cover mapping but that it covers other aspects of community planning, as well. How large is this branch?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is not actually a branch. It is part of community services and there are about four people working there.
Community Planning in the amount of $70,000 agreed to
On Canada/Yukon Infrastructure Program
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is an increase of $1,800,000 in funding for projects under the Canada/Yukon infrastructure agreement to renew and enhance the Yukon's physical infrastructure in local communities. Applications for projects are delivered and submitted by communities and are jointly reviewed by a committee of federal government representatives, Association for Yukon Communities representatives and Yukon government representatives. Approved projects are shared on a one-third allocation split with municipalities and a 50/50 split with incorporated communities.
Mr. Cable: I had quite a few questions about this department over the last couple of weeks.
Where do we sit on that program? Is the program fully committed for the present fiscal year?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: No, it is not full yet, but we have commissions for the 1994-95 year and applications are now being received.
Mr. Cable: Does the Minister think that the funding to be matched will be fully expended?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Perhaps not in the first round of applications, but over the entire year, the answer is yes.
Mr. Cable: If I remember correctly, this is actually the second year of the program.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes, it is.
Mr. Cable: Is there any resistance, at the municipal level, to coming up with the municipal one-third share?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: No.
Ms. Moorcroft: The Minister just stated that applications are now being received in response to a question about whether or not the funds are fully committed for the next year. Was the Minister successful in having the deadline extended beyond January 31?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We worked with the federal government on this. We noticed the request and think it will be accepted.
Ms. Moorcroft: How many applications have been received in the last month?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We are not sure because there are still some coming in. We are not sure how many will come in before the deadline.
Canada/Yukon Infrastructure Program in the amount of $1,800,000 agreed to
On Public Health/Roads and Streets
On Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is an increase of $50,000 for revote for sewage disposal in Burwash Landing to produce a sewage assessment report. It could not be completed in 1993-94 due to the requirement for a re-evaluation of the scope of work and to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
There is $60,000 to carry out a needs assessment study for Marsh Lake sewage disposal. This project could be done as a winter work employment item.
There is $25,000 to carry out a geotechnical investigation and related work for the site feasibility of the Pelly Crossing sewage pit relocation. This project could also be done as a winter work employment item.
Ms. Moorcroft: Can the Minister tell me what the government's plans are to improve sewage treatment and disposal in Burwash?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Right now we are working with the Kluane First Nation on that. At the present moment, sewage is hauled to Destruction Bay, and we are trying to see if we can get a sewage location closer to the Burwash area.
Ms. Moorcroft: Is there a target date in mind for this project?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: This is just a study to see if it is feasible; we have not designed it or started a work project.
Sewage Treatment and Disposal in the amount of $135,000 agreed to
On Hazardous Waste, Storage
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The $100,000 reduction is due to the special waste program development being transferred to the Department of Renewable Resources on April 1, 1994.
Hazardous Waste, Storage in the amount of an underexpenditure of $100,000 agreed to
On Pre-Engineering Roads and Streets
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is a $12,000 reduction to project planning assessment as the expenditure for small projects was less than anticipated. Therefore, funding has been transferred to Miles Canyon bridge repair.
Pre-Engineering Roads and Streets in the amount of an underexpenditure of $12,000 agreed to
On Roads/Streets Upgrade
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is an increase of $25,000 to do road design for Beaver Creek street upgrade; $19,000 for Miles Canyon bridge repair, of which $7,000 is a revote to complete repairs not done in 1993-94 due to the delay of the delivery of new bolts; and $12,000 is required to do minor work.
Roads/Streets Upgrade in the amount of $44,000 agreed to
On Quarry Development
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The amount of $140,000 is required for site analysis and development to do a comprehensive site selection analysis and geotechnical investigation in the Whitehorse area. This project is being brought forward from 1995-96 as a winter works item.
The amount of $72,000 is required for the McLean Lake quarry expansion to complete construction and to apply BST at the request of the residents along the McLean Lake access road. A reduction of $40,000 is due to the requirement of quarry rehabilitation work being minimal this year. The amount of $20,000 is for land claim quarry identification. On-site evaluations have been delayed due to land claims issues. Once settled, land use applications can proceed.
Ms. Moorcroft: I am sure the Minister expected to get a question or two on quarry development during this debate. The voted-to-date column indicates $150,000, and now there is an additional $151,000. I did not hear everything that the Minister read when he was discussing the study that was being done. Why has it doubled, aside from the survey of quarries, about which there has already been some debate?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The principal reason is $140,000 for site analysis and development, to conduct a comprehensive site-selection analysis and a geotechnical investigation of the Whitehorse area to see if there are any more gravel pits, other than the one located at the Stevens subdivision.
There is an additional $72,000 for the McLean Lake quarry expansion to complete construction and to apply BST at the request of residents on the McLean Lake Road.
Mr. Cable: Is work on the gravel inventory partly being done in-house, or is it being contracted to a consulting firm?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Some of our people are working on it. We are not sure whether or not there is a private individual involved. The city is working with us, and I will get back to the Member with further information.
Mr. Cable: I am wondering what we are being asked to approve. Is that partly internal costs?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes.
Mr. Cable: I would gather that inventory is more than site identification. Are we talking about volumes as well?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Yes.
Quarry Development in the amount of $151,000 agreed to
On Land Development
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is a reduction of $150,000 on Dawson, Callison stage 3, which has been delayed pending resolution of placer-squatter issues and the clarification of development responsibility with the City of Dawson; $300,000 is for the Teslin industrial project, which has been deferred at the request of the community pending the village boundary expansion; $150,000 for the Watson Lake industrial project has been delayed pending land transfer from the federal government.
Industrial in the amount of an underexpenditure of $600,000 agreed to
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is an amount of an underexpenditure of $150,000 for Kopper King commercial project, which has been deferred pending the First Nations' selection of land. The estimated development costs exceed market value.
Commercial in the amount of an underexpenditure of $150,000 agreed to
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is an increase of $50,000 for Mount Lorne rural residential to conduct site selection feasibility assessment and a legal survey for three rural residential lots. Funding is transferred from Whitehorse rural homestead.
There is an amount of $25,000 for Carmacks residential in-fill lots, to do in-fill planning at the request of the community; an amount of $200,000 to develop 30 combination agriculture and rural residential lots on the Hot Springs Road. Work to be done in 1994-95 is planning, public consultation, grubbing, stripping and design. Funding is transferred from Whitehorse rural homestead. An amount of $90,000 is required to complete road construction at Mary Lake country residential, which was deferred from 1993-94 due to poor weather conditions.
Ms. Moorcroft: Could the Minister explain to me what the Whitehorse homestead lots are?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: I have something to read on this first, and then I will get back to the Member's question.
There is $150,000 for Stevens country residential subdivision, to complete design and legal surveying, and the clearing of 32 lots, as a high priority had been put on this project by both the City of Whitehorse and the Yukon government. This project has subsequently been delayed as further discussions occur with the City of Whitehorse; there is $1,130,000 for Cowley Creek country residential, phase 1, to complete development of 42 lots, as a high priority had been put on this project by both the City of Whitehorse and the Yukon government; $75,000 for Logan subdivision, due to increased construction costs, mainly in materials such as piping; there is $10,000 in other small amounts.
Reductions are as follows: $210,000 for Carmacks country residential, for construction of 16 lots that were scheduled for release in the summer of 1994 and have been deferred at the request of the community due to land claim issues affecting access to the site; $75,000 for the Rock Creek rural residential project that has been put on hold pending resolution of land claim issues as the projected site has been selected by the Dawson First Nations; $445,000 for Watson Lake Branches Avenue stage 2 project that has been deferred at the request of the community because of a low demand for lots; $250,000 for Whitehorse rural homestead is a general account for rural residential development. The budget is moved to the individual projects in order to track the development cost. This budget has been moved to the Hot Springs Road, $200,000, and Mount Lorne, $50,000.
Did the Member get an answer to her question, or would she like me to read it again - on the homestead?
Whitehorse rural homestead is a general account for rural residential development. The budget is moved to the individual project in order to track the development costs.
Ms. Moorcroft: How many lots has the government developed under the Whitehorse rural homestead designation in the current year?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The intention was to put some more lots on the Hot Springs Road. This has been delayed because of the vote on what size of lots they want and a few other things, so we have not done that yet.
Ms. Moorcroft: Does the Minister know how many Whitehorse rural homestead lots have been developed in the current year?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We do not have a total right now. We intended to do some at Pilot Mountain but they have been delayed. The Mount Lorne ones will go ahead this spring.
Ms. Moorcroft: I heard the Minister saying something about agricultural lots on
the Hot Springs Road in the initial breakdown. I was wondering if he could explain that to
me. How many agricultural lots was he talking about?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Those lots would be planned for 1995-96. It would just be the technical work done now.
Ms. Moorcroft: That raises a question about the transfer of the management of agricultural land parcels to Renewable Resources, which, I understood from the Minister, had taken place. How much work does the Department of Community and Transportation Services do? Does it just do the surveying or initial development, or what?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The Department of Community and Transportation Services does the surveying and the work on the lots. Renewable Resources tells us the number of lots in a certain area, and we then do the survey work and any other work required to get them ready for sale.
Residential in the amount of $750,000 agreed to
On Land Central Services
On Planning and Engineering
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The photographic and mapping project has been transferred from Central Services to Community Planning.
Planning and Engineering in the amount of an underexpenditure of $40,000 agreed to
On Rural Electrification and Telephone
Hon. Mr. Brewster: There is a $36,000 revote for work not completed in 1993-94 due to the onset of winter, and $150,000 in additional funding is required due to the increased demand, as three subdivision applications have been received: North Deep Creek, Pine Lake and Nygren, Haines Junction. Two more are expected for South Deep Creek and Fossil Point and Mendenhall, as well as individual applications.
Ms. Moorcroft: Does the Minister expect that the work on those applications will take place in the current year?
Hon. Mr. Brewster: We know that North Creek is definitely on, and some of the others are filling in their applications. Some have indicated they are but have simply asked questions about how they go through the process. It is a very popular program and has been for a long time, so I think it will probably fill up again.
Rural Electrification and Telephone in the amount of $186,000 agreed to
On Miscellaneous Projects Non-Recoverable
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The $12,000 revote is required for various legal surveys, non-recoverable, to complete surveys that the contractor was unable to schedule in his workplan before the end of 1993-94.
Miscellaneous Projects Non-Recoverable in the amount of $12,000 agreed to
On Prior Year Adjustment Lands/Property
Hon. Mr. Brewster: The prior year adjustment for land and property assessment is to bring Local Improvement No. 164 Mendenhall Road upgrade into agreement with OIC 1994-47.
Ms. Moorcroft: I did not understand exactly what that meant. Can the Minister
explain what a reduction in a prior year adjustment for lands and property actually means?
Perhaps he could try some simpler words.
Hon. Mr. Brewster: When the Mendenhall Road was put in, each taxpayer agreed to pay $1,000, payable at $100 per year on their tax assessment. For some reason that payment was not collected last year and no one told me about it. Now we are going to be a year behind collecting the $100 from each resident.
Prior Year Adjustment Lands/Property in the amount of an underexpenditure of $4,000 agreed to
On Total of Other Capital Expenditures
Total of Other Capital Expenditures in the amount of nil agreed to
Community and Transportation Services in the amount of $17,007,000 agreed to
Hon. Mr. Brewster: Mr. Chair, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 3.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Motion agreed to
Speaker resumes the Chair
Speaker: I will now call the House to order.
May the House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?
Mr. Abel: Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 1995-96, and Bill No. 3, Third Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and directed me to report progress on them.
Speaker: You have heard the report of the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Speaker: I declare the report carried.
Hon. Mr. Phillips: I move that the House do now adjourn.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to
Speaker: This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
The following Sessional Paper was tabled February 7, 1995:
Employment equity corporate report 1992-93 (Phillips)
The following Legislative Returns were tabled February 7, 1995:
Quarry lease program: information pertaining to leases within the City of Whitehorse (Brewster)
Oral, Hansard, p. 673
Whitehorse and Watson Lake airports transfer to the Yukon government: information pertaining to (Brewster)
Oral, Hansard, p. 762 to 763
The following Document was filed February 7, 1995:
Access roads: letter dated November 1, 1993, to MLA for Faro from Minister of Community and Transportation Services re departmental policy (Penikett)