Whitehorse, Yukon
Monday, April 14, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.
By-election return to writ
Clerk: I wish to inform the Assembly that a letter has been received from the Chief Electoral Officer respecting the by-election held in the Electoral District of Vuntut Gwich'in on April 1, 1997. The letter, dated April 14, 1997, reads as follows: "Subsequent to the report of the Hon. Mr. Justice R. E. Hudson, the order to declare the election of Robert Bruce in the Electoral District of Vuntut Gwich'in void and for that election to be set aside caused a vacancy for that electoral district.
A writ for a by-election was issued on February 28, 1997 and polling day was April 1, 1997.
I hereby advise that the returning officer for the Electoral District of Vuntut Gwich'in has certified in the return to the writ that Robert Bruce has been elected as the Member to represent that electoral district in the Legislative Assembly. Yours sincerely, Patrick L. Michael, Chief Electoral Officer."
New member takes seat
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have the honour to present Mr. Robert Bruce, representing the Electoral District of Vuntut Gwich'in, who has taken the required oath and now claims the right to take his seat.
Applause
Clerk: Hon. members of the Assembly, on April 10th, 1997, Hon. Doug Livingston informed the House that he would be resigning as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly upon the adjournment of the House on that day. Therefore, effective at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 10th, 1997, Mr. Livingston ceased to be the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. As required by law, nominations are invited for the Office of Speaker of this Assembly.
Election of Speaker
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move, seconded by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party
THAT Robert Bruce, Member for the Electoral District of Vuntut Gwitchin, do take the Chair of this Assembly as Speaker.
Clerk: It has been moved by the Hon. Mr. McDonald, seconded by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party
THAT Robert Bruce, Member for the Electoral District of Vuntut Gwich'in, do take the Chair of this Assembly as Speaker.
Some Hon. Members: Agree.
Clerk: I think the ayes have it, and by direction of the Assembly declare that Robert Bruce has been duly elected as Speaker of this Assembly.
Applause
Speaker's Address to the Assembly
Speaker: I would like to express my thanks to the Assembly for the great honour it has given to me by electing me to be your Speaker.
I will now call the House to order.
We will proceed at this time with prayers.
Prayers
Speaker: Oh Great Spirit, Creator and Leader of all people, we are thankful to be gathered here today. Oh Great Spirit, I ask that you touch and bless each and every one in this House.
Grant that we, the elected Members, will make only strong, fair and sound decisions on behalf of the peoples we represent throughout Yukon.
Amen.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Are there any tributes?
TRIBUTES
Tribute to participants in Yukon science fair
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I'd like to pay tribute to the many participants in the Yukon science fair that was held up at the Yukon College site this weekend. Young people from across the Yukon took part in this educationally valuable experience. The teachers, organizers, judges and parents also deserve our recognition for their support for project-based learning.
There are many categories of awards, and I'm pleased to announce that two of the projects will be proceeding to the Canada-wide science fair to be held in May in Regina. One was the "Fight for the future" about cancer prevention, and the second was about a parabolic sound collector.
So, again, congratulations to all of this year's science fair participants.
National Volunteer Week
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, today is the beginning of National Volunteer Week. Volunteer Canada in Ottawa contacted legislators across Canada to recognize National Volunteer Week by wearing this green ribbon for the week. I wear this ribbon for the Liberal caucus and these ribbons are being worn in legislatures all across Canada today.
In addition to wearing the ribbon, legislators were asked to donate one hour of their time this week to a volunteer organization and indeed, all the members of the Liberal caucus have volunteered their time for at least one volunteer activity this week. Truthfully though, most of us here in this House volunteer our time at least once a week every week.
The Yukon is still a small place and many of the services and clubs that enrich our lives are based on volunteer service. Today I am wearing my Guide uniform to show my colleague Pat Duncan's and my own membership in the sisterhood of guiding, a sisterhood that spans the globe and many generations of women.
Joyce Hayden is also a former member of this Legislature who is active in Yukon guiding. Our caucus is active in numerous other organizations as well, but this day is not about our participation in volunteer activities in the Yukon; it is about many, many men, women and children who volunteer their time each day to make our lives richer.
The most obvious example of this month's volunteerism is the response of the volunteers of all Whitehorse's churches, that have replenished the food stocks at Maryhouse and the Salvation Army.
Volunteers are our greatest natural resource. To all Yukon volunteers, we appreciate what you do.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I, too, would like to commend all of those individuals who enrich our lives by their volunteer activities throughout the year. I'll be speaking more specifically about the Maryhouse food drive in a few moments, but I would also like to note that several members of our caucus are also volunteering this week at the soup kitchen in an attempt to demonstrate our commitment toward volunteerism in the community.
Maryhouse food drive
Hon. Mr. Sloan:
A truly remarkable event has occurred in the Yukon over the last few weeks. People of the Yukon have once again demonstrated their tremendous generosity and caring. I'm speaking of the results of the food drive for Maryhouse and the Salvation Army that was organized, cooperatively, by the churches of the Yukon and the Ecumenical Ministerial Association.
Hundreds of volunteers delivered 5,000 grocery bags to homes throughout Whitehorse. Several days later, volunteers have returned to find an overwhelming response of over 4,500 bags overflowing with essential foods.
The true measure of any community is its caring. The people in the Yukon have once again shown their finest qualities. This is a tribute to everyone who participated.
Maryhouse pointed out this morning that it was obvious that people shopped specifically to help others and provided the essential non-perishables that Maryhouse had requested.
I'd like to commend the volunteers, the organizers, Maryhouse, the Salvation Army and everyone else who filled a bag of groceries to help those in need. I think this is truly a marvelous start to volunteer week.
I would urge everyone in this territory to continue the efforts of organizations to help care for all Yukon people, and there will be a number of opportunities to do so in the next few weeks, including the campaign of the United Way, which funds worthwhile projects throughout the territory.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to pay tribute to all of those people in the Yukon who showed that the true Yukon gold is found in our own hearts.
Speaker: Introduction of visitors.
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I rise to welcome and to introduce some of my younger constituents to the Assembly today. The grade 7 class from Golden Horn Elementary School is here with their teachers, Chris Hobbis and Linda Lammers, and some parent volunteers, and I'd like all members to join me in welcoming them.
Applause
Speaker:
Tabling of returns and documents.
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Speaker: I have for tabling a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer that the Clerk read to the House earlier today.
Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I have for tabling a legislative return for a question from the Member for Klondike that was asked me on April 3rd concerning the Campbell Highway.
Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?
Are there any petitions?
Are there any bills to be introduced?
Are there any notices of motion?
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr. Hardy: I rise to give notice of the following motion:
THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Taylor House is an important and historic landmark in Whitehorse and that the Yukon Legislative Assembly urge the Yukon government to continue to work with the City of Whitehorse, Yukon Chamber of Mines and the Yukon Historical and Museums Association to develop a plan to preserve Taylor House.
Speaker: Are there any statements by ministers?
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Athletic games, Yukon participation
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I am pleased to rise today to declare 1997 and 1998 as the year of the games. Participation in sport and recreation provides many benefits for the health and social well-being of Yukon people and we are fortunate to have such an active volunteer sector dedicated to the development of Yukon communities and people throughout sport and recreation.
The opportunity to represent Yukon at national and international sporting events and games is a special honour. In 1997 and 1998, Yukon will be represented at three major sport events: the North American Indigenous Games, the Canada Summer Games and the Arctic Winter Games.
This government is committed to investing in the development of youth and the building of strong, healthy communities through sport and recreation. We are therefore proud to be contributing $354,000 from this year's budget, in addition to $11,000 from 1996-97, to enable over 560 athletes, coaches, officials, mission staff and cultural performers to represent Yukon at these three important national and international games.
In all, a total of 1,600 participants will benefit by participating in the selection trials for these three games.
The North American Indigenous Games was scheduled to take place in Victoria, B.C. from August 3rd to 10th of 1997. Team Canada will consist of 140 athletes, coaches, volunteers, staff, support staff and cultural performers. Yukon athletes will compete in eight events, including archery, athletics, swimming, badminton, shooting, volleyball, boxing and wrestling. Athletes have been selected from across the territory, ranging in ages from 13 to 20 years old. The North American Indigenous Games will attract aboriginal athletes and cultural performers from across Canada and the United States. The North American Indigenous Games complement this government's goal of increasing access and equity for our aboriginal youth to participate in sport and recreation opportunities. The lasting legacy is the development of self-esteem in the individual through the pursuit of excellence in sport.
As you know, Yukon has a long history of participating in the Canada Games. This year, the Canada Summer Games will be held in Brandon, Manitoba, from August the 10th to 23rd, 1997. Yukon's team will be made up of 50 athletes, coaches and mission staff. They will be competing in tennis, wrestling, swimming and cycling. While we are small in numbers, we can be proud of the dedication and commitment that every member has made to representing Yukon in this team. These young athletes and their coaches have been training for the past two years in order to participate in these games in Brandon. They have set high goals for themselves and deserve the full support of all Yukon people as they set out to achieve their dreams.
Yukon has been one of the original three partners in the Arctic Winter Games since they were first established in 1970. The Arctic Winter Games symbolize athletic competition, cultural exhibition and social interchange. The games are a vehicle to strengthen the development of northern athletes and to showcase the very cultures of northern people from Greenland, Northwest Territories, Yukon, Alaska, northern Alberta and Russia. Yukon will be sending a team of 373 athletes, coaches and officials, mission staff and cultural performers to Yellowknife to participate in the Arctic Winter Games from March 15th to 21st, 1998.
I want all team members in this House to join me in wishing the members of each Team Yukon the very best as they prepare for these games. May each and every participant realize their personal goals and dreams and return home with fond memories and new friends.
Mahsi' cho.
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, sports have always been, and will continue to be, a major part of Yukoners' lives. The Yukon Party has been and continues to be a strong supporter of sports and it has helped make the Yukon a centre for sports and recreational activities. As part of that commitment to Yukon athletes, the Yukon Party government contributed over $400,000 in Yukon sports fundings to various Yukon sport associations during the 1996-97 fiscal year, and provided monies in support of Yukon's participation in various games across Canada, including the North American Indigenous Games, Arctic Winter Games, Canada Summer Games, Canada Winter Games, and Yukon Special Olympic Games.
The Yukon Party has been a consistent supporter of Team Yukon's participation in the North American Indigenous Games. In 1995, Team Yukon comprised 111 participants, representing all Yukon First Nations, of which the previous Yukon Party government was pleased to be a sponsor. The indigenous games fostered pride, self-esteem and leadership in aboriginal youth, and provided an awareness and appreciation of First Nations culture.
I am pleased to see the Government of Yukon continue its support towards the games, and it is my hope that one day the Yukon will be able to host these games.
One thing that the minister did not mention in his statement was the breakdown of funds for each games that the Government of Yukon will be contributing to. I would appreciate receiving this information from the minister.
Like the North American Indigenous Games, it is also my hope that Yukon will one day have an opportunity to host the Canada Games. Yukoners may recall the efforts taken by the former Minister of Community and Transportation Services, Mr. Bill Brewster, to have the Yukon added to the hosting cycle for the Canada Winter Games. With the support of the City of Whitehorse, as well as other provincial and territorial ministers responsible for sports and recreation, Yukon has an opportunity to host the Canada Winter Games in the year 2007.
Last December, the Yukon Party caucus introduced a motion urging the government to establish a Canada Winter Games trust fund in the next year to assist in the planning and facility development needed to host the Canada Winter Games in 2007. I am hoping the government will give serious consideration to this suggestion, as the opportunity would be a real coup for Yukon, not to mention the many economic benefits that would come to Yukon.
Mr. Speaker, the Arctic Winter Games came about as a result of Yukoners and other northerners not being able to compete effectively and very, very well in the Canada Winter Games. If the Yukon is successful in being able to host the Canada Winter Games, we will have come a very long way indeed since 1967, when after our trip to the Canada Winter Games, the Yukon Commissioner, Jim Smith, and the NWT Commissioner, Stu Hodgson, created our own northern games.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, children who are regularly active are less susceptible to stress. They perform as well or better academically. They exhibit positive attitudes about school and themselves. They are less aggressive and play better with other children. This is from the 1992 Canadian Association for Health and Physical Education and Recreation.
Mr. Speaker, more than 80 percent of Canadians between the ages of 10 and 24 who are active have never smoked. This is from the 1980 Campbell survey of Canadian fitness and lifestyle.
Girls who are active in sports are 92 percent less likely to use drugs and 80 percent less likely to have unwanted pregnancies. This is from the 1992 Institute for Athletics in Education.
Mr. Speaker, how could you not support these games? I join the government in wishing well the coaches, athletes, sponsors and all the volunteers that will help to make these games happen.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments from the other side of the House this afternoon. I agree with the member opposite that it is truly beneficial to society as a whole that we can have sporting events like this that bring together team work, support for one another, helping one another in every way, on the field and off the field. The figures and statistics are truly representative of where we want to go with healthy minds. Young healthy minds turn into truly healthy communities.
We are having preliminary meetings with the city. We have discussed with the city their needs in this area that is ongoing to host the Winter Games in 2007. I would be pleased to provide a breakdown of each game for the member opposite. Thank you.
Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation, power rates
Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Energy Corporation. I'm sure he didn't expect the question today, but nevertheless we'll direct one or two at him.
On Friday, the Yukon Energy Corporation filed an application with the Yukon Utilities Board for a 20-percent interim rate increase for all service categories. Mr. Speaker, this'll be the third increase since the NDP came to power. What this means, Mr. Speaker, is that the ratepayer who was paying an electricity bill of $100 a month in September of 1996 under a Yukon Party government, in May of 1997 under an NDP government will be paying a minimum of $130 - a 30-percent increase in six short months.
My question to the minister : is it the minister's intentions to have the electrical ratepayers bear the full impact of these rate increases that have been applied for?
Hon. Mr. Harding: The unfortunate situation that we have to deal with is we have had an extensive increase in the world price of diesel and energy, and that had an impact and a rate rider on Yukon power consumers. There was a 1993 court decision that also affected rates. It was long before we came to power but, nonetheless, we had to deal with it. Of course, we've had the situation whereby the rates that exist today were based on the assertion that Anvil Range would be in operation. Unfortunately, I cannot report to the House today that that is the case.
We responded with the continuance of the bill relief program in December, as we committed to in the election campaign. To respond to the issue of the proposed increase as a result of losing the Anvil Range as a major customer, we have asked the interveners, or we asked the Energy Corporation, if they would consult with them about the rationale for their changes, to listen to suggestions that they may have prior to them filing an application with the Utilities Board.
Subsequent to those discussions last Wednesday, and the president of the corporation coming before the House, they have now filed that application. There were some good suggestions that came out of the interveners. They will get another kick at the cat before the YukonUtilities Board. It is now seized of that board, and once the board relinquishes their ruling, then certainly the government is free to deal with it in whatever options may exist. I'd be interested in suggestions from the Opposition parties on that point.
Mr. Ostashek: I thank the minister for that, but he failed to answer the question. There are many, many Yukoners out there that are very, very concerned. The unfortunate situation here is that the NDP promised to stabilize energy rates and keep them affordable.
Under the Yukon Party government, with the rate relief policy, residential customers were protected from any further increases while the policy was in effect. This minister has already passed on two rate increases to Yukon ratepayers, and my question to the minister is this: is it his intention to make residential users and other service categories pick up this third rate increase?
Hon. Mr. Harding: The member is incorrect. First of all, we did take action promptly to work on stabilizing rates. We did that in December. We brought back the bill relief program that the members opposite refused to commit to bringing into effect until they had some death-bed repentance during the election campaign.
We worked very hard on that. We brought it in. Their assertion that their rate relief somehow protected Yukon ratepayers from these increases is completely wrong, as its been understood by the Utilities Board and by the Energy Corporation. That is to say, even if they brought in rate relief at all. They've already gone on the record in this session as saying rate relief is wrong, it's a short-term way to deal with the situation. So, I submit to the members of the public and the members of this Legislature that if the Yukon Party were to have been re-elected, we wouldn't see rate relief in existence at all in this territory.
We had the unfortunate situation of dealing with the mine shutdown - two rate increases based on decisions prior to us coming into office. We will continue to work on rate stabilization. We will continue to support rate relief. We're working on revamping it right now. Those commitments we made and those commitments we will keep.
Mr. Ostashek: Let the record show that the minister has again failed to answer the question.
This further 20-percent rate increase for all service categories is going to have a very inflationary impact on the Yukon economy. As electricity is considered a cost by all industries, by all services groups - tourism, the service industry, the mining industry - as a cost of doing business.
Those businesses are going to pass that rate increase on to the consumers.
Does the minister not believe that the rate increases of this magnitude will have a negative impact on the Yukon economy - an economy that's already weakened by the closure of the Faro mine - and does the minister not in fact believe that this will lead to further increased unemployment in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Harding: I think it's only fair that I refresh the public's memory on the record of the member opposite.
In 1993, when the Faro mine came down, the Yukon Party responded to the Yukon Energy Corporation with a request for interim rate hikes of 58 percent. They also brought down a budget with record tax increases. So, for them to stand here and preach to me on that point I find somewhat hypocritical.
But, I will say that we are concerned about the proposed energy rate increases and we're hoping that some mitigative action can be taken to deal with the situation once the Yukon Utilities Board, who sees to the matter, has the interveners come before them to make concerns known, to raise suggestions, and we'll be free at that point, as a government, to take whatever responsive action we can to the situation, and we will.
Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation, power rates
Mr. Ostashek: I guess any Yukoners who are listening to this are saying, "Oh, my God, I guess here we go; we are going to pay another 30 percent because this minister failed to take action."
This minister wants to talk about hypocrisy. Let's talk about the hypocrisy of the NDP in Opposition, that said, because the rates didn't go down when the Faro mine opened up, that they were making windfall profits. Now, under their administration, the mine is closing down and they are allowing another rate increase. If we want to talk about hypocrisy, that is the hypocrisy of all hypocrisies, right there.
To the minister again, on energy: there has been a 30-percent increase in power rates in the six short months that this government has been in office. We know that there are going to be further rate hikes coming as we move on down the road, perhaps as much as 55 percent by next year. Can the minister advise this House what he intends to do to help the 15.7-percent unemployed, senior citizens, single mothers and others on a fixed income to cope with this 30-percent increase in their power bills? It is time that Yukoners had a clear answer from this minister.
Hon. Mr. Harding: I have to respond to the preamble in the member opposite's question. The member opposite has been mixing apples and grapefruits in his rhetorical preamble. He talks about the issues of the windfall profits for Yukon Energy Corporation and that somehow being related to this situation. That is a situation whereby the Energy Corporation takes in more profits than they are allowed or ordered to by the Yukon Utilities Board. That is a question of whether those profits should be put back into rate relief or some other matter.
The issues regarding the two rate increases that we dealt with prior to this interim application relate back to a 1993 court decision when he was in power and there was an extensive world price increase in diesel costs. They are completely separate issues, but I understand what the member is trying to do. He is trying to raise concerns in the public and set up concerns that I can understand, because power bills are certainly very important to Yukoners.
We will deal with the situation. It is going to the Utilities Board. The Utilities Board is seized of it. They will make a decision based on the interventions that are brought before them and the submission of the Yukon Energy Corporation. We will then take - and I am going on the record today - whatever action we can to deal with the situation.
I might also point out that, if we are fortunate enough to have a change with the status of the Faro mine operation or not, that could change this whole picture very dramatically.
Mr. Ostashek: I am sure it will. I would just like to let the minister know that it is not I who is trying to raise alarm bells in the public; it is the public phoning me and raising alarm bells and asking me to ask questions about what this government intends to do, after all the promises they made when they were in Opposition, to stabilize energy rates and make them affordable for Yukoners.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployed and those Yukoners on fixed incomes are going to get hit again and again every time they go to the store if this minister allows this rate increase to go through. Every time they buy a loaf of bread, every time they buy a pair of shoes, every time they buy a service in this community, they are going to pay more money for it, because this government is going to allow energy rates to increase by 30 percent in six short months.
Can the minister tell this House - and tell Yukoners now, because they have a right to know - what immediate actions is he going to take to make sure that electrical rates are affordable for Yukoners, something that his party has preached about for many, many months?
Hon. Mr. Harding: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the member says, "If the Minister lets this go through"; that's implying that it's totally within my control. This is the Yukon Energy Corporation. Rates today were based on the assertion that the Faro mine would be operating. That's the first point.
Secondly, on the 20 percent, it's going before the Utilities Board. There will be close scrutiny paid to the requests of the Yukon Energy Corporation. There is due process in effect. The intervenors will get a chance to argue, to make suggestions. There is the potential situation whereby the diesel contingency fund could be looked at. "What action did we take?" the member asks. Well, we brought back the rate relief program that the members opposite had not committed to Yukoners to bringing back into effect. We did that in December, and, Mr. Speaker, we're working on decisions with regard to long-term energy policy and rate stabilization questions with the Energy Commission.
I'll also point out to the member that when we were hit with 58-percent increases in 1993 after the mine shut down, what did the Yukon Party do for four years in office so that when this situation occurred again, we could deal with it? Instead, we're left, five months into office, dealing with it. If the Yukon Party would have taken a little bit of action, perhaps the blow wouldn't have been as severe as he is indicating it's going to be.
Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, this minister's got to quit blaming the previous government for his problems. He is the minister responsible now, and people are looking to him for answers, and he isn't giving any to the Yukon public.
Let me approach this in another way for the minister, so that he can realize the impact of what he's allowing to happen here, and he says I'm saying he's allowing it to happen. Yes, he is allowing it to happen. He has some levers that he can pull to reduce this impact to Yukon consumers, and it's up to him to act in a responsible manner and do it.
Mr. Speaker, the Yukon government is currently in negotiations on new collective agreements with the teachers and the public sector employees. This 30-percent rate increase is going to have an impact on those negotiations. It's going to have an impact. What is the government's position going to be in these negotiations? Will the government be making allowances to the negotiators to make up for this 30-percent increase that all union employees and every other Yukoner is going to have to pay now?
Hon. Mr. Harding: I find this line of questioning quite amusing from the members opposite, who were the architects of the first decision in the country to kill collective bargaining in a jurisdiction with no accumulated deficit, Mr. Speaker. Unprecedented action. Now they are standing up today and saying that there somehow should be a 30-percent increase mandate awarded to the negotiators for their dealing with this situation.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the first two issues, with regard to the rate increases, were issues that arose, one from a 1993 court decision prior to us even coming into office, an increase in world diesel prices and ongoing ability of the Energy Corporation under a rate rider. We responded quickly with rate relief in December, something the members opposite did not commit to doing, and I only wish that the members opposite, after having had a 58 percent increase come before the public in 1993, would have tried to do something in advance to deal with offsetting future impacts.
Mr. Speaker, we will have to take that task, and we accept the responsibility we have been given by the public. It's difficult to do it in five months, but we did commit to rate relief, we are undertaking initiatives for longer-term rate stabilization, and we will continue to work on long-term policy.
Question re: Energy, needs-based subsidy program
Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the same minister on the same topic.
The energy commissioner was on the radio the other morning talking about a needs-based subsidy program, and the minister had previously mentioned this in his ministerial statement last December.
Could the minister tell us whether this needs-based subsidy program is in lieu of or in addition to the present rate relief program?
Hon. Mr. Harding: The present rate relief program is in effect for this calendar year. We haven't announced any changes to it. I invite the Liberal member of the Legislature to take part in the Energy Commission's work, to make suggestions on what he'd like to see for some changes to the rate relief program. I'm not sure quite what he's advocating on the floor of the Legislature here, but I'm sure that the energy commissioner, in his deliberations over this calendar year as they plan for a new rate relief program, would be interested in his comments.
Mr. Cable: We can get into the discussion later, but right now I was asking a question whether that program that was suggested, both by the minister and by the energy commissioner, was in lieu of or in addition to the rate relief program.
The reason I ask that is that the energy commissioner was on the radio the other day saying, "Our rate relief program is very important to Yukoners, reducing their power bills by up to 15 percent." Now, if this 20-percent rate increase goes through, what's going to happen to these people that don't qualify for a needs-based subsidy program? Are they in fact going to be paying 35 percent instead of 20 percent?
Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is completely hypothetical. He's saying "if" the rate increase goes ahead and "if" these changes in the rate relief program take effect. Mr. Speaker, they're in consultation right now. The whole issue of the 20-percent interim rate increase proposal is before the Yukon Utilities Board. Let's not put the cart before the horse. I think that if the members opposite have some concerns or some comments about the consultation surrounding the rate relief program, they should let us know and we'd be more than happy to take them into consideration.
Mr. Cable: The energy minister and the energy commissioner put the idea out. It's not hypothetical because they're talking about it. I was hoping that he could give us something to nibble on.
Let me ask this question: the rate relief is in force until the end of the year, by the directive that was given to the Energy Corporation, and it's funded out of Yukon Energy Corporation profits. From what we've heard in the last couple of weeks, there aren't going to be any profits. Does the minister have some firm plan as to what is going to feed the rate relief program, or is he just winging it?
Hon. Mr. Harding: I don't know quite how the member makes the assertion that those are the only choices available. The member is a great fan of asking the government to do white papers to put ideas out for consideration. He's always asking us to embark on studies and have commission work and do all kinds of things.
Mr. Speaker, the member was simply putting out an idea for consideration. It should form part of the basis for some consultation and some discussion with the Yukon public. I think that that's the appropriate way to deal with this situation, as we embark on a new rate relief program and, as I said before, I invite the member opposite to partake in that process.
Question re: Seniors housing
Mrs. Edelman: My question is for the minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation. Even now, there is an insufficient housing inventory to meet seniors' needs. Ten years ago, there was a needs assessment conducted on the Yukon housing market. Will the minister conduct a new needs assessment that will lead to the development, inevitably, and the implementation of both public and private housing projects for seniors?
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I'd like to thank the member for her question. Certainly, as I said before, this is an issue that seems to be more and more of a concern to communities and to seniors. I did say that we were going to try to have the seniors advisory group up and going again, so that they can make recommendations to us. That has not happened, and we want to continue to look into the housing situations for seniors.
Mrs. Edelman: A fourplex for seniors in Teslin is completely occupied by non-seniors. The consultation process with seniors before building did not adequately identify seniors' needs. Will the minister commit to seniors or elders input in the planning of any future, government-funded seniors development?
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: One of the commitments that we're making with the corporation is to look more and more to the communities to have the communities' concerns met, more so than being directed by overall Yukon, and we'd like to try and continue to work in that fashion and bring the community concerns forward. I think a lot of these issues would come out in that type of atmosphere.
Mrs. Edelman: Hopefully, it would.
The HASI program, which provides up to $2,500 for home adaptations for seniors, has never been accessed. It has never been used. This program could help seniors stay in their own homes while creating private sector employment. Would the minister consider actively promoting this program, in creative ways, to seniors and to the private sector?
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: We will certainly look into this and I will get back to the member with an answer.
Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation, funding to offset Aishihik water loss
Mr. Ostashek: My question, again, is for the minister responsible for the Energy Corporation.
The NDP government's unilateral decision not to allow the Energy Corporation to draw down Aishihik Lake, as allowed by their water licence, has had a negative impact on the cashflow of the Energy Corporation by some $5 million - $5 million that went up in diesel smoke. That's limiting the options available to the Energy Corporation to deal with the shortfall in cashflow caused by the Faro mine closing down.
My question to the minister: does the minister intend to use some of the $10 million that's in the Development Corporation that they had earmarked for electrical infrastructure development? Does the minister now intend to tap into that fund to help to reduce the impact to all service classes of ratepayers in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Harding: I thank the member for that question.
The member states that it was a unilateral decision. In the election campaign we committed to taking action to mitigate the environmental damage on Aishihik Lake, something the members opposite did as well. They did nothing the last four years. We relied on the recommendation from the technical advisory group on the Aishihik water re-licensing and took their advice, and made that decision.
With regard to it affecting cashflow, the member knows full well that the president of the Energy Corporation confirmed the other night, as a witness, that it did not affect the cashflow. The money used to finance that was reserves. It was not a direct revenue-flowing item.
It's funny the way the positions are changing from the Opposition. On April 3rd, the member opposite said that there should be no use of Yukon Development Corporation money to offset any proposed rate increases. Today, on April the 14th, he's telling me that there should be some use of Yukon Development Corporation money. Could he please give us a more clear indication of what his position is on that?
Mr. Ostashek: This is the minister that had all the answers when he was in Opposition. Now he's asking the Opposition to solve his problems for him.
I just asked the minister about what he intends to do about the $10 million. That is what I asked him and Yukoners have a right to know.
The president of the Energy Corporation did not say that here on Wednesday night at all. He did say that the $5 million did have an impact on cashflow. What he said was that the rate increase they were applying for was directly related to the lost revenues from the Faro mine. The reality of it is that, because they don't have that $5 million in the Energy Corporation, they are very limited in what they can do to deal with that rate increase.
My question to the minister and his NDP is: during the election campaign, they promised Yukoners they would keep electrical rates affordable and stabilize electrical rates. That is what they promised Yukoners. My question is to the minister: at what level does he intend to stabilize rates and does he believe that a 30-percent increase in electricity rates, imposed by his government upon Yukon ratepayers, is affordable?
Hon. Mr. Harding: First of all, I am trying to get a clear sense of what the member's position is. On April 3, they said, "Don't use Yukon Development Corporation monies to offset any potential rate increases as a result of Anvil Range." Today, they're saying that there should be Yukon Development Corporation monies used to offset that. There's only so many sources that you can use to deal with a situation like this. There is the potential to use reserves and there's the potential to use taxpayers and there's the potential to use ratepayers. So far, he has eliminated all of those options, but he's got no answers for me.
The issue, as the president of the Energy Corporation said the other night, was that it was not a cashflow issue. The member knows full well with regard to the Aishihik Lake decision, that it was financed by reserves, not revenues. The 20-percent rate increase that they proposed is from March 31 on, and has to do with shortfalls.
What this government will do is what we did in December: a bill relief program, which is something the members opposite did not commit to until the last dying days of the election campaign. And, we will respond, now that the board are seized of the matter, once the Utilities Board goes through due diligence and their screening and due process and listens to the intervenors.
Mr. Ostashek: It is really nice to watch this minister twist and turn in the wind, but he certainly isn't giving any comfort to Yukoners about what's going to happen to their power bills, something that that party campaigned on.
One thing I can say about the Yukon Party's rate relief program was that we didn't see residential customers paying more for their power while the rate relief program was in place.
Anvil Range Mining has stated that the high electricity cost was one of the reasons for the Faro mine closure. It is also one of the issues that needs to be resolved before the Faro mine goes back into production. My question for the minister: does he not believe that the additional 20-percent increase, on top of the 10-percent increase that has already happened since this government came to power, will make it that much more difficult for Anvil Range to restart the mine in Faro?
Hon. Mr. Harding: That is an amazing question. The whole 20 percent that's proposed is based on the issue of Anvil Range not being in operation. That's the reason they're proposing the rate increase. So, if they go back into operation, then Mr. Speaker, you won't have that revenue shortfall and thus you won't have it.
So, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how long it took the member to think about that question, but I think he might want to spend a little bit more time in the morning on thinking these things through.
Speaker: Order please. Let the minister finish his statement, please.
Hon. Mr. Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We promise to work on stabilizing rates. We brought in bill relief in December. We've been hit with a 1993 court action. We've been hit with increased diesel prices. I wish the members opposite, in their four years, would have come up with a plan that dealt with rate stabilization. They didn't, but now that's our task. We're dealing with it. We're dealing with it through the Energy Corporation. We intend to keep an eye on the situation with the Yukon Utilities Board. Once they render their decision, as a government we'll take what action we can to deal with the proposed increase, whatever the level it may be at that point.
Question re: Seniors housing
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Yukon Housing Corporation. The private sector, including the construction industry, does not appear to be planning for the seniors housing market, which could produce revenue and create jobs. Would the minister consider facilitating the involvement of all sectors of the economy, including public and private sectors, in the planning of Yukon seniors housing developments in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Member for Riverdale South for her question. Well certainly, in the housing industry with Yukon Housing Corporation, the withdrawal of CMHC is going to have a big impact on us all and until such time as Yukon Housing Corporation is successful in negotiating some kind of an arrangement with them, it's certainly going to be difficult to deal with this issue.
I can say that we would like to be a little more friendly in using the private sector and having a better working relationship with them. I certainly would like to build that. I know it's going to be difficult for anybody to get into this joint venture in building seniors housing, but there is a program in there and I do urge the private sector out there to try and come up with something.
Mrs. Edelman: That is the mandate of the Yukon Housing Corporation.
The 1993 housing conference said that YTG should be involved in, but not necessarily build, all seniors housing. An example of a successful private sector initiative would be the Abbeyfield Society, for example, which produced secure seniors-adapted, seniors-crafted housing from old, less attractive buildings. This type of initiative is innovative and creative. Has the minister considered cooperating with the housing industry and meeting the needs of Yukon seniors by researching innovative seniors housing projects in other jurisdictions and making that information available in the private sector?
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: As I said earlier, we would like to be concentrating on the communities and having them come forward, on how they would like to see their seniors housed. I know that the majority of the seniors are certainly looking more and more at staying in their own homes rather than a seniors complex.
If there is information that the Yukon Housing Corporation has with other jurisdictions, I can certainly bring that forward and have that information for you.
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the minister really understood my question, but I hope that he can read that in the Blues tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, just about everywhere you go in Canada, you will find seniors housing in the form of a seniors trailer park. These are gated communities that offer security, accessibility, groundskeeping and recreation. We have a mobile home-heavy housing stock in the Yukon. We have a need for seniors housing. We have an economy crying out for jobs, and we have a plan being developed for mobile home lots in Whitehorse and in the Yukon. Will the minister at least consider adding seniors' housing needs to the list of issues to be considered by his government in future land development?
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Certainly, we can consider that.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed, and the House will now proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the members' wish to take a brief recess?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Chair: Fifteen minutes.
Recess
Chair: I will now call the House back to order.
Bill No. 4 - First Appropriation Act, 1997-98 - continued
Executive Council Office - continued
Chair: We are dealing with the budget, Executive Council Office.
Chair: Is there any further general debate?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have some information that I would like to hand out for all members. One question that was asked of me was to provide an organization chart for the department. I have a chart. I will explain what it is briefly. If members could pass it out, perhaps to the Opposition side first, it would be helpful.
The organization chart is on a number of different pages, but it will be fairly easy to read. It identifies the overall organization, including the organization chart that is identified in the departmental budget document. With each section led by either a director or an ADM or deputy Cabinet secretary, there is a subsection that is identified in the following sheets, which identify all the personnel associated with that branch, including the Cabinet commissions - a document I have already tabled. So, that would identify the organization of the department.
Now, I've got some information respecting new positions. Members asked about what the new positions in the department were, and the new positions, as members will note from the organization chart, show three positions in intergovernmental relations, one principal negotiator, one director of policy and mandates within land claims, a half-time secretarial position in land claims, and the director of communications.
Now, with respect to the question put on the job description for the assistant deputy minister of intergovernmental relations, I have a handout for members with that information. This shows the job posting, the position description and a statement of qualifications for this position. I handed out last week the same information respecting the chief land claims negotiator.
The members also asked a question respecting the outside territory travel by private members on commission business, and I have a list. I regret that there's very little information on a whole sheet of paper. The forest industry at least will forgive me.
I'll pass that out.
Now, there was some information requested respecting costs of Cabinet commissions and I'm having that information copied now. It should be down with us shortly, and when I receive it I will pass it out.
The positions of the assistant deputy minister/intergovernmental relations, and the assistant deputy minister/chief land claims negotiator, are positions that previously existed in the government and they have the same job classification as the previous positions. The job descriptions for the existing positions were based on the previous job descriptions and were revised as necessary to reflect the changing circumstances and our priorities.
The assistant deputy minister position, with overall responsibility for the Land Claims Secretariat, existed from 1989 to 1991, when this position was made a deputy position. The current assistant deputy minister/chief negotiator for land claims, is a return to the older organizational model with one ADM responsible for land claims and implementation activities, reporting to the deputy for the Executive Council Office. This position replaces an organizational model based on a deputy responsible for land claims, with an ADM responsible for implementation and an associate chief negotiator reporting to the deputy.
The assistant deputy minister/intergovernmental relations also existed in the early 1990s, with the title of assistant deputy minister/constitutional development, devolution and intergovernmental relations. This position was moved in 1992 and its responsibilities assigned to the policy branch. In 1995, a deputy was given responsibility for devolution, along with land claims responsibilities.
As I mentioned, the previous positions have been classified by PSC, and the existing positions are the same classification for the new positions that had be given to the older positions. The salary ranges, of course, are identified for all positions in the job descriptions that I've tabled.
A question was put to me with respect to the revenue accruing to First Nations under the oil and gas memorandum of agreement, and the answer to that question is that the royalty revenue accruing from April1993, to the transfer date will be shared with the First Nations on a 50-percent basis. This share to date totals approximately $3.15 million. Individual First Nations' share will be based on the sharing arrangement outlined in chapter 23.2.4 of the UFA, or as agreed to by First Nations.
Of course, oil and gas royalty revenue after the transfer date will be shared with First Nations, in accordance with chapter 23 of the UFA.
So, when I get the commissions' costs, I'll pass that out.
Mr. Ostashek: I thank the minister for the information he's given us. It's virtually impossible to digest that information right now, and I do have a couple of questions that come to light right away. We still have some outstanding information that we asked for. I don't have a lot more questions in general debate, but I'm prepared to go line by line, if the minister is prepared not to clear the department until such time as we get the additional information, or in case more information arises after we have had a chance to study the information we have so far, as well as the information that's still outstanding. Can the minister make that sort of commitment?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I'm prepared to try to provide information as quickly as possible. I wouldn't want the members to feel that we've not been giving information. Certainly we do and would like to give them the time to digest it, of course, but there's not a lot to digest, but there is a lot of paper.
The questions that the member asked I understood to be particularly about the commissions. Is that not correct?
Mr. Ostashek: Well, we have questions about the total cost of the commissions. That paper hasn't been delivered to us yet. As well, it's going to take us at least a day or two to go through this to see what there is and to digest it and to review the Blues as to what the minister said on his feet just now. I mean it's very hard to be able to grasp it all verbatim and then come back to it, especially when we've been away from the department for a few days. I guess all I'm saying to the minister is that I'm prepared to move out of general debate and go line by line if he's prepared just to leave the department and not clear it. In case we had some more questions, we'd clear it two or three days from now. I mean it's not something I want to hold up forever, but I do want to have the opportunity to be able to ask any more questions that may arise out of the information that's going to be tabled. That's all I'm asking.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I can agree to that, Mr. Chair. I think if we're not talking about coming back to the Executive Council Office periodically for the next two months, then we're talking about trying to clear the department in due course and quickly, and I'm more than happy to try to provide information and give the members time to digest it.
Mr. Ostashek: That's all I'm asking for. I don't want it to be outstanding for the rest of the session, if we could just get the commitment that we won't clear it today. I don't know about my colleagues - I don't have that much more to go on it, and I would just like the opportunity to be able to come back whenever is convenient for the minister, and we finalize it and clear the department at that point. I don't want this to carry on forever.
I just have a couple of questions here now that have risen from what the minister has said so that I can get clear in my mind.
On the revenue accruing to First Nations, my understanding is - and I could be wrong on this and the minister will correct me if I'm wrong - under chapter 23, the revenue sharing was up to 50 percent of the first $2 million, but it was only to apply to the bands that had settled at this point.
The minister said something about "it may be distributed under some other method that First Nations agreed to." Is the minister saying to the Legislature today that he's prepared to distribute the 50 percent up to $2 million to all bands in the Yukon regardless of whether they finalize land claims or not, because that would be substantially more money that would be distributed if it was more. My understanding is it's only the four bands that have settled that are qualified to share in that resource at this time. The minister may correct me if I'm wrong.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, the essential concern arose from those First Nations that had not yet settled. As I understand it, the problem was that the first four First Nations would take advantage of the entire amount allocated to First Nations under the sharing arrangement - not a pro-rated amount, but the entire amount. The concern, essentially, is that other First Nations felt that, through no fault of their own necessarily, they would not be allowed any resources.
Now, the option that has been presented to them is that - and an option that is agreed to - if they want a different sharing formula amongst First Nations, all the First Nations - other than that which is already laid out under the UFA - have to agree. It would have to be unanimous because we don't want another First Nation who doesn't sign on to come back and try to change the arrangement. So, they all have to buy into the sharing formula.
If we can get that agreement - and there's every suspicion that we probably can - then the allocation amongst the First Nations could be changed from what we initially anticipated would be the case.
Mr. Ostashek: I am still not perfectly clear on that. My understanding, from the briefings I had from officials, was that revenue sharing would only involve the first four First Nations that had settled their land claims agreement and that it would be done on a pro-rated basis and that the excess revenue from that would not flow to the first four First Nations, but would remain in the general revenues of the territorial government. Am I wrong in that?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would recommend perhaps, under the circumstances - as it was not my department that negotiated the actual arrangement with the First Nations; it was the Department of Economic Development - that when we get to Economic Development, perhaps the member will want to pursue it; otherwise, I am going to have to tool myself up. I don't feel comfortable giving precise information in the House that may not be entirely complete.
Mr. Ostashek: I asked the minister, as he is the minister responsible for land claims, to bring a legislative return back to the Legislature on that issue.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I could.
Mr. Ostashek: On the travel documents that we have for caucus members, this pertains only to outside travel. Is the minister prepared to table travel inside Yukon, as well?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Is the member asking for travel respecting just commission business or is he asking for travel respecting constituency business?
Mr. Ostashek: We are going to need it accounted somewhere. If it is counted under commission travel, there's no necessity to bring it back in a return other than what the travel is for. If there is other travel in the territory by caucus members - and the minister is utilizing his caucus more extensively than in past governments - I think we ought to be entitled to know how much money they're spending.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The question put to me was for outside travel, which I have provided and it shows that there are two members who have travelled outside the territory. With respect to inside the territory, there certainly is travel inside the territory. It is budgeted in the commissions' budgets. I can get a listing of the travel taken so far by commissioners on commission business.
With respect to constituency travel, I am assuming the member is not asking for that, and that it is just the travel associated with public business.
Mr. Ostashek: The member's correct in that. We would just like what travel has been carried out in the six months the government's been in power on commission business by backbenchers, so that we can try to get the total cost of this operation.
Is the minister prepared to expand on what consultations took place in Vancouver-Nanaimo by the Member for Whitehorse Centre, who's responsible for the local hire commission?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I'm certain the commissioner can speak for himself.
Mr. Hardy: Could I have the member opposite clarify that question again for me, please?
Mr. Ostashek: The question I asked is what consultations took place in Vancouver and Nanaimo that necessitated the Member for Whitehorse Centre to travel there.
Mr. Hardy: Part of the work that we're trying to do is identify what other jurisdictions are doing throughout Canada to increase local hire, to increase opportunities for businesses. We felt that the methods that are being used on the Island to deal with their problems - and they're facing quite substantial problems with the mainland contractors and workers travelling across on the ferry, working for three, four or five days, and travelling back again, where the Islanders are not getting the work and the communities are suffering - quite similar to what we feel has been happening up here. There was an approach that was done down there that we felt merited investigation. We went down and met with quite a variety of groups - contractors, the organization that set up the structure to deal with specifically the Island highway project - and what they've done to increase local employment, as well as opportunity for local contractors.
We met with politicians, we met with municipal councillors, we went and viewed the sites, we met to see what the makeup was for First Nations on the job, as well as, I guess, the increase of women working in a trade, as well as people with disabilities. So that's what drove us to go down there and see it first hand.
We probably wouldn't have gone if there wasn't such a success story. What we heard was a very high success rate in what they're trying to achieve, which is exactly what we're trying to achieve here. When we went down there, it was confirmed. As well, we made contact with the people down there on how we could demonstrate to the people up here and see if it merited application up here.
Mr. Ostashek: The member continually refers to "we". Could he tell the House who travelled with him?
Mr. Hardy: Sure I could. The person I travelled with was one other one. There was myself and the deputy commissioner, Luigi Zanasi.
Mr. Ostashek: I have one further question for the minister at this time and then I'll let somebody else go. There was a reference, I believe, either in the budget speech or a ministerial statement in the House this session, for the restructuring of Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. Could the minister elaborate on it?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, there is a submission going before Cabinet before too long on the membership of the YCEE and the selection of a chairperson for the council.
It is our intention, of course - this is not inferring any decisions before they're made, but certainly, there's an expectation - that YCEE will do as was expected of it when the Economic Development Act was passed and the Environment Act was passed, and that is that the council will review the economic strategy and will review the conservation strategy annually, as was mandated under law.
Those certainly will be part of their mandate, but we have not yet made a decision with respect to the full membership, nor the chairperson. The old chairperson, Mr. Preston, resigned some time ago and we have to seek a replacement and give them the mandate.
Mr. Ostashek: Is the minister saying that there is consideration being given to expanding the number of members on the council?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I can't, at this point, say whether we're going to expand or reduce the membership - or change the membership - from organizations currently in place on the board. That decision has yet to be made, and it will be soon.
Ms. Duncan: I'd like to delve, if I could for a moment in general debate, into the appointments to boards and commissions.
The minister will be aware that there's an informal committee working on this issue and working on the recommendation that all-party committee appointments be used to make appointments to major boards and commissions.
We understood in our first meeting that the appointment process for gathering appointments and so on from the general public had been moved to Executive Council Office territory. Would the minister confirm for me that that would be the public communication services section in Executive Council Office, or is it some other section?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I frankly don't know what section or who is handling that in the Executive Council Office. I'll have to return with that information, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Duncan: There seems to be general agreement on a list of major boards and committees, which definitely would require this all-party committee appointment process.
Is the minister and his government prepared to suspend making any of these major appointments until such time as this informal committee does its work?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I think that would be highly unlikely, Mr. Chair. First of all, I'm not aware of any informal agreements. That has not been reported to me at all, but if the member wants to tell me more, I'd appreciate it.
With respect to the boards and committees, particularly the senior boards, I would think it would be highly unlikely that we would want to delay, very long, the appointment process for many of these boards.
I don't know if the Workers Compensation Board, for example, is on the member's list that she says there is already agreement on. If that board has lost a member, then clearly time is a-wasting if we can't get an appointment to that particular board.
So I think it would be unlikely. I don't know when the all-party committee will report back or what the status of their discussions are, but I would suspect that, if we have a vacancy, we'll fill it.
Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, expediency of appointment and timeliness was a huge discussion at one of the informal meetings and I can appreciate, to some degree, some of the minister's argument.
In the absence of an all-party agreement on a method for making appointments to major boards, for example YCEE, which was just mentioned by the minister, is the government prepared to put some other process in place in order that there can be all-party committee input into this? He just mentioned YCEE and appointments going before Cabinet. Is there some method for seeking other caucus input into those appointments?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Certainly, I understand that my colleague has just indicated that he did seek opinions from other members with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board appointment. If that's not true, maybe the member could put it on the record.
The member is asking me the question as a general proposition. First of all, as a general proposition - are we prepared to suspend boards and committees appointments until sometime and some point that an agreement is struck on the procedures - I can't give that commitment, because I do not know the impact of what that would mean. If that means that the public's business is undone because we can't get together and get an agreement, I can't agree to that. We have a responsibility to serve the public. We have to get the public involved. These boards have to be operating.
I would encourage members of this committee to try to come to some arrangement. I have already indicated that my own preference is that they do try to come to some arrangement. We have not been trying to hold it up. We've tried to be accommodating. If they can come to some arrangement that makes some sense, then that's great.
With respect to boards and committee appointments as they come up or as board appointments expire, certainly I would think that would be desirable. If members wanted to put forward some names, they should be encouraged to put forward some names. In the absence of any other formalized arrangement, I would be happy to consider those suggestions.
Ms. Duncan: Let me just go at this from another angle. What I have heard the minister explain to me is that, in the absence of an informal, all-party committee agreement, the government is not prepared to suspend making major appointments to boards and committees. I understand that.
There was an informal process in the absence of the informal committee reaching agreement. There was an informal process used for making suggestions for appointments to the Workers Compensation Board. As a caucus member, I appreciated that opportunity to have input into that.
What I am asking the minister to state for the record is if the government is prepared to use that same informal process for these other major boards and committees. More than just saying, "Yes, members are encouraged to make suggestions." I am asking for the commitment that there would be some consultation on the list of major boards and committees - some consultation.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would really encourage - I have just been given information, so I just understand that a transfer of letters has just recently taken place between members. The member has caught me rather cold on the subject. I am going to have to therefore say that I would encourage the member to take the matter up with the Member for Lake Laberge, who is our caucus representative on the committee, and, if she wants to propose some options, to encourage this group to consider these proposals.
I guess the member and Mr. Phillips and Mr. Livingston are all members of this committee, and they should be encouraged to come to some kind of consensus.
Mr. Phillips: I'm a little bit puzzled today by the answers given by the minister with respect to this committee. I was under the impression that the minister himself had directed Mr. Livingston to contact the Liberal Party and me and meet on this issue, and come to some kind of agreement. The minister is sort of standing on his feet today and saying he didn't know anything was going on. I'm concerned that I wasn't wasting my time at the meeting, because I thought I was meeting with Mr. Livingston as a representative of the Government Leader, who had indicated some time ago that there would be all-party consent, or some kind of all-party agreement, to appointments of people to boards and committees.
Maybe the minister can tell us if, in fact, he did direct Mr. Livingston to conduct those meetings and why there isn't a reporting process. I know I went back to my caucus, and I'm sure Ms. Duncan went back to her caucus and said, "Here's what we did. Here's what we decided. What do you think?" I'm wondering why there was no reporting process to the Government Leader, or to whomever directed this to start in the first place, or was this just Mr. Livingston's idea?
I don't know. It seems to me that the Government Leader should have known something about it. I just assumed that when I got the first indication from Mr. Livingston for the meeting that it was on direction of the Government Leader himself, who said, "Get together with these folks and let's start having some discussions."
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I think the member is taking my comments out of context, and that's unfortunately typical. However, the fact remains that the caucus of our government has indicated that Mr. Livingston will be our point person in terms of trying to strike an arrangement between the three parties on the subject of boards and committees membership.
This government's not a one-man show. He does report to the caucus. Now, I haven't been in the caucus meetings in the last few days, because I've been out of town. That doesn't necessarily mean that the government stopped while I was gone. I'm presuming that it continued operating.
With respect to an attempt to try to find some negotiated arrangement, I'm certain that Mr. Livingston is more than capable of performing that task and is well aware of the general feelings of our caucus with respect to the matter at hand. With respect to the letters that were just recently exchanged, I have not been given, personally, a heads-up as to what happened. My suspicion is that there are attempts to get me to do something that Mr. Livingston has not agreed to do. Consequently, I'm going to be extremely careful, because I don't believe that that's the way this issue should be handled.
With respect to the issue of the boards and committees appointments process, it is desirable that there be some process that encourages some sort of all-party input into certain key board and committee memberships in the territory. What that process is and which boards and committees are selected is a matter to be discussed by the committee. If the member does not want to sit on the committee; he doesn't have to. I didn't say he had to be there. If he feels he's wasting his time and wants to do something else, do something else. Mr. Livingston will be present and will be charged with the responsibility, on behalf of our caucus, for trying to come to some kind of agreement to ensure that everything goes as smoothly as possible.
Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry that the Government Leader is such a sensitive guy, but I expressed a genuine concern. Normally the Executive Council Office has been responsible for the boards and committees appointments. The Government Leader himself has sort of taken the lead role on this, and when he was in Opposition talked about appointments to board and committees and suggested that it should be an all-party committee. I guess I wrongly assumed that the Government Leader had given direction to Mr. Livingston to contact us to come to some consensus on whether or not we could reach an agreement on appointments to boards and committees.
I mean, the meetings were useful. It was a good discussion. What I'm dismayed about is that the Government Leader didn't even know they were happening. He says he was missing the last couple of meetings and didn't know what the last letter was. Well, that's fine, but that isn't what he said about 15 minutes ago. He said he didn't even know the meetings were taking place. He said that he didn't know what discussions had taken place. He didn't know what was going on with that. All I'm saying is that if we're going to have meetings on these things then surely to goodness the minister who's supposed to be responsible for it should have an idea of what's going on and should be briefed after there is a meeting so that he has some inkling of what people are talking about.
I know he's rather sensitive and he'll probably jump to his feet and personally attack me again for some unknown reason, but that's the way that minister operates. What I'd really like him to do when he gets to his feet is to tell us that there is a process by which he does communicate with Mr. Livingston and that what we're discussing is getting back to the minister who is ultimately responsible for delivering this kind of agreement in the end. That's all I'm asking.
I thought the meetings were useful. I thought the meetings were actually getting somewhere and we'd reached some agreement. They were just taking a little bit of time and we appreciated that. What the Liberal member and myself indicated to Mr. Livingston is that if there are any appointments pending, we put some kind of a process in place by which we could honour or be involved in the process in which the government had said, when it stood on this side of the House, we should be involved in. We should be involved in making suggestions and appointing - more than just tokenism- the individuals who are on boards.
We should be able to make recommendations, and in the light of a full-fledged agreement, at least we should be consulted in some form or another. We can work out something that wouldn't be so complicated as this can be - as these things seem to be sometimes - but something somewhat simplified in the interim to expedite appointments, not to hold any up, and that we were actually involved in it and not just that we can send some names up to the minister or send some names to Mr. Livingston. My impression of the meeting is that Mr. Livingston and Ms. Duncan and myself all felt - all three of us indicated - that there should be more involvement than just sending lists around to each other. So that's all I'm asking the minister to communicate, or maybe have a meeting with Mr. Livingston, and discuss what has been said. Possibly we could work something out in the interim, in another meeting, which we could hold at Mr. Livingston's convenience, and work something out for us. That's all we're asking.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: It's interesting that the member said that all he's asking is for another meeting with Mr. Livingston, and I've just suggested that perhaps he and Ms. Duncan might have another meeting with Mr. Livingston and talk about this very matter, so I'm glad the member and I agree on this point.
With respect to the member's suggestion that I didn't know what was happening at all, that is, of course, incorrect. Respecting the member's desire to express a genuine concern, I would submit that is a genuine fantasy. I don't accept that proposition at all, particularly given the fact that the member, when he was on this side of the House, who also said that there ought to be a process, did nothing for four years, and there was no attempt to consult with Opposition at any time or even to have such meetings to try to come up with some system at all. So, I can't accept the member's proposition.
Now, I want to make one thing clear. Our caucus has named Mr. Livingston to be the spokesperson with respect to this matter, and that is a person that I will recommend that the member speak to with respect to the appointment process.
Now, the appointments are actually made technically by Cabinet, not by the Minister responsible for the Executive Council Office, and so I've explained the process as clearly as I can about what our general intentions are to come to some kind of agreement on the boards and committees process. If the members are fearful that they will not have an agreement despite their best efforts over the next couple or three months, and they want some interim arrangements, then I would suggest that they speak to Mr. Livingston in the committee meeting about that subject, and then Mr. Livingston can speak for the caucus on this matter.
Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, maybe the minister can tell us, then - he said that the caucus appointed Mr. Livingston to be the spokesperson and he said the Cabinet makes the decision, I guess, on appointments. I thought it was the minister responsible for Executive Council Office whom we can ask questions of on this matter. Is that still the case? Is the Government Leader the minister responsible for Executive Council Office, who, in fact, has the ultimate responsibility for this issue? Is this the point person to whom we talk for this issue?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, with respect to a particular board appointment - for example, the Workers' Compensation Board - I would submit that if perhaps the members have a specific concern about that particular board appointment then they will speak to the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board. If they want to speak to the process of the appointment process, then they can speak to the member in the committee forum that we have delegated to speak on the subject. And I understand that there is every hope that there will be an agreement struck through the committee process.
If the members feel that that committee process is not going to work, then they can speak to me now and make their position known.
Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the concern is not that the committee process will not reach agreement. I raised this in the Legislature as a motion. It's an issue that's very near and dear to me personally, and as an elected official I think it is extremely important.
The issue is that, while this committee is doing its work, Cabinet, of which Mr. Livingston is not a member, is making decisions. I have no difficulty, and I'm confident that I can speak for my caucus, that no one is raising the issue of the specific WCB appointment. There is a list of nine, I believe, major boards and committees.
Let's use an example: the Yukon Development Corporation, the Yukon Energy Corporation and/or the Yukon Utilities Board - particularly the Utilities Board. It is absent three members. If Cabinet were to make a decision while this committee is doing its work, three members could be appointed to that board.
All I am asking the minister for is a commitment in this Legislature that he will, in the absence of a formalized process developed by this committee, use some form of an informal process on those Cabinet appointments.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I'll discuss the matter with the member in caucus who had been asked to lead the discussion with the members opposite, with respect to the boards and committees appointments, and I will ask him his opinion with respect to the matter of interim arrangements and whether or not they've been discussed before, and what his opinion is on those things. And, if an interim arrangement can be agreed upon, then we will strike an interim arrangement.
Ms. Duncan: I thank the Minister for following up on that suggestion, and I'd just like to emphasize that these are highly politically charged boards and committees on the major list, and there was, I thought, in the spirit of a new Legislature, a real intention to try and work cooperatively on this, and our caucus is certainly endeavouring to do that.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, our caucus is certainly endeavouring to do that, too, and I would argue that we have gone further faster than we have on this subject than we have in the last 15 years.
Mr. Cable: I just want a point of clarification. The other day, in Executive Council Office, we touched on oil and gas legislation. I think the Government Leader indicated he expected it to be passed this spring, in Parliament. Has he asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to expedite that legislation?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, our understanding is that the minister would do his very best to try and get it through in the spring sitting of the Parliament. That may not be possible, but certainly our current understanding is that he will try and that there will be a window of opportunity.
Mr. Cable: Has he had any recent conversation with the minister to determine when the final reading will be given to the bill?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I haven't had any personal contact with the minister for a few weeks, at least, but I know that officials have been speaking to each other on a whole range of subjects.
I would suspect that when we last left this, the minister committed himself to putting it through during the spring sitting. If he is unable to do that, I expect that he would let us know.
Chair: Is there further general debate?
We will now go to page 2-6, Executive Council Office, Cabinet and management support.
On Executive Council Office
On Cabinet and Management Support
On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures
Chair: Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: As members can see, the budget for the branch has decreased by $262,000 - a 22-percent decrease. This decrease is primarily related to the one-time costs, not being borne this year, associated with the severance of two deputy ministers in 1996-97.
Mr. Ostashek: I just want to get on the record that the estimate has decreased. The final cost won't be known until a year and one-half from now when the Auditor General does the books. When I look at the actual cost of 1995-96, the total Cabinet budget and management support has gone up a little bit from what the actual costs were in 1995-96. Both 1996-97 and 1997-98 are merely estimates, not actual costs.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: While I appreciate the member making that clear once again, I hope he doesn't feel he has to make it clear every time we stand up for a line item throughout this entire budget document. That would take at least a day to just do that one task.
Of course 1995-96 are the only actuals we are aware of; 1996-97 is clearly a forecast; 1997-98 is obviously an estimate. But we do compare, and we've always compared, forecast estimates. This is nothing new, so the procedures that we have identified for identifying our expenditures and estimating expenditures and forecasting the previous year's expenditures are pretty much a tradition around here.
On Activity
On Administration/Secretariat
Administration/Secretariat in the amount of $933,000 agreed to
Cabinet and Management Support in the amount of $933,000 agreed to
On Land Claims Secretariat
Chair: Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The budget for the Land Claims Secretariat is increased by $932,000. We're up 29 percent from 1996-97. We're expecting, of course, that the completion of the First Nation final and self-government agreements are this government's top priority.
The budget provides for additional senior negotiation staff, required to handle the increased negotiating activity toward the completion of all outstanding agreements. Two million, four hundred and ninety thousand dollars has been identified for specific implementation projects and funding to UFA boards and committees in 1997-98.
Individual departments are carrying out these activities with recoverable federal funding flowing through the Land Claims Secretariat.
Mr. Ostashek: I just have a couple of questions here. On the increased funding, I know that we were given a pool of money from the federal government that was negotiated for the finalization of land claims and implementation. I guess my question to the minister is: are those funds that we negotiated still able to cover the costs, or are we digging into general revenues to top this up? I think it's important that Yukoners understand where we're at financially on this.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is a very good question and would be a very difficult one to determine, depending on what one counts as implementation costs.
I may have put this on the record before, but I have long held the view that the implementation costs that we have been provided by the federal government are insufficient. I do believe this quite strongly. However, we are going to try and keep the implementation process as much as we can boxed to certain specific and key areas and then try to force the federal government's hand to pay for everything else.
It is very difficult to determine what is an implementation cost and what is not. There are some things that one might argue - for example, on the land use planning area - that we might be doing anyway. One might argue that we're only doing them because of the land claims agreement, and whether or not that should be incorporated into the land claims implementation fund is obviously debatable.
I have discovered that there are some very high expectations from some departments that they are going to be able to tap in, in a major way, to this fund. They can't all do that, because there is not enough money in the fund to tap into, so obviously there is going to have to be some reality therapy about what we can accomplish within the context of this fund. That, I am certain, will not be a subject that will end this year or next year or for the next 10 years. It will be an ongoing issue for the government to contend with.
I can't answer the question really specifically. There are certain projects, like renewable resource councils or certain one-time costs for studies that are identified at the land claims table, that certainly will indeed come out of this fund. Whether or not we can meet all expectations is a highly debatable proposition, in my view, and we may not be able to do some things. We may decide that some things are very important and do them anyway and fund them ourselves. That is the best answer I can give right now.
Mr. Ostashek: I thank the minister for that, and I certainly realize the difficulty in trying to deal with this. The member opposite is not the only one that didn't think we'd got enough money for implementation, but the reality of it was it was forced upon us and the Yukon First Nations to take a reduced amount or watch the land claims settlement not go anywhere. So we did it. But I still think it's important that the implementation funding was spread over a 10-year period. I think there is 10 years for implementation of land claims, and the funding was a block of funding that we were given.
I believe it's very important for the departments to try to separate. Some of it may be arbitrary, but I believe it's important that Yukoners know how much of this was funded by the federal government or whether the federal government has really reneged badly on their obligations to the First Nations people and to the territorial government.
So I would urge the minister to try to put in place some sort of an accounting that will tell Yukoners which things we're paying for out of general revenues that we feel are important to the land claims process that the federal government has failed to fund. If the minister could at least give me a commitment to look at that, I will ask him in the next budget process whether he was able to put a process in place.
With all the computers we buy now and the accounting programs we have, I don't think it should be that difficult a task. I do agree with the member opposite that some of the figures will be arbitrary. They'll have to be arbitrarily decided on by the departments, such as the example the minister used with land use planning. But I do believe it's important that we try to track the two issues separately to see if, in fact, the federal government is even close to what it's going to cost Yukoners to finalize and implement land claims.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, certainly I can give, almost instantly, an accounting of what money has been spent on and what we are preparing to spend money on, but I know the member will appreciate how difficult it would be to determine what is an absolute commitment under the land claims process that will be funded under implementation and what might be a decision made, thanks to the land claims agreement, that would ideally be paid out of implementation but there won't be enough implementation funding there to pay for it.
Accounting for those kinds of decisions is a very difficult proposition, and the member would acknowledge, I am sure, that that would be very arbitrary accounting on our part. Clearly, there has to be, as I have mentioned before, some reality therapy as to what we can actually do and what we can actually accomplish.
I have not said publicly - well, I may have said publicly - I'm concerned about the size of the implementation fund, but I've not criticized anyone for agreeing to that fund. I know that a lot of the financial arrangements between the federal government and the Yukon government are not a matter of negotiation at all; they're a matter of being informed of what the situation will be and accepting it. While it may have been a tough decision for the government of the time, I'm certain they didn't want to hold up the land claims agreements either in order to try to secure a few extra bucks from the federal government.
So, I'm not faulting anybody for it; I'm just saying that I don't think there's enough money. That's the suspicion I have based on some comments that I've heard from. For example, one department doing land development suggested that the implementation fund should pay for the transfer of some already developed lots to a First Nation. The implementation fund will pay for it. Well, I think that's a highly dubious proposition given that these lots that are referred to could be as much as half the implementation fund, and so consequently I don't think it's probably realistic that half the implementation fund will go to just the lots. But that's an example of where some people can be labouring under some misapprehensions about what can be covered and what can't be.
Nevertheless, I am certain that we can meet our basic obligations. It may not always be smooth, given the financial restraints that we face, but I'm certain we can meet our primary obligations. If there is a possibility, if there is a way - and I'll ask the Land Claims Secretariat - to identify implementation costs that are well-known and that would be anticipated, I'll try to get a listing for the member so that he can see that. Obviously, I can't get a listing of what people's fantasies are about what the fund might actually fund.
In terms of the implementation itself, certainly the Land Claims Secretariat is doing a number of things in this current year to undertake meeting our commitments to do studies and that sort of thing that came out of the land claims negotiation process. All of what we're proposing to do this year, of course, were commitments made in the past from arrangements already struck to fulfill our commitments.
As the member knows, this implementation project funding will be transferred to line departments, who will undertake to do those projects. It won't be done directly through ECO.
The implementation group in ECO, as the member I'm sure is aware, have a number of other tasks ahead of them: f
or example, participating in the program service transfer negotiations, the financial transfer agreement negotiations, the bi-lateral agreement with Canada on the outfitters' compensation, et cetera. There are a number of things that are ongoing. I think the last one has been concluded.
Mr. Ostashek: I thank the member for that, but I just want to be on the public record that I don't expect the minister to ask departments what they believe should be funded by the implementation agreement, but I do believe it's important to track the costs, because I believe that in the agreement there's an automatic review in the fourth year as to whether the funding meets the expectations of what it was supposed to do. So, unless we keep track of what we're spending and can verify and provide evidence that that money was, in fact, directly spent on the implementation of the land claims, we're going to need that information to make a strong case to the federal government if, in fact, we find out that the shortfall is more than what we expected when we signed the agreement.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, certainly we can track the costs that we're bearing. As I mentioned, I want to keep the box as tight as possible so that we don't spend the money too soon before our full obligations have to be met.
Obviously, there are still some outstanding final agreements to negotiate. They will have obligations too. This is a finite pot; it's not that big. Money has already been committed. We've got to be careful. Consequently, the member and I agree on these general points, and if there's any way to track it better, certainly we're going to try to track it better, and I've already made it clear that I think we should be concerned about what is categorized as an implementation cost and what can be funded. But, we do, obviously, have to be very careful about this particular fund.
On Activity
On Land Claims Secretariat
Land Claims Secretariat in the amount of $4,187,000 agreed to
On Intergovernmental Relations
Chair: Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, the intergovernmental relations unit was split from a policy communications branch in recognition of the priority that government wants to assign to devolution of federal responsibilities and to improving First Nations government-to-government relations and other intergovernmental relations initiatives. I have given the members a copy of the organization chart, which shows those expenditures in this area.
Mr. Ostashek: I just have one question here. I guess maybe I should have been on top of it, having just come out of government, but it sort of glared out at me, and that's on the job descriptions here in the advertisements for an ADM for intergovernmental affairs. Is an MG10 the normal range for ADMs?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I was informed, Mr. Chair. I asked this question just so that I would be clear myself. The ADM for intergovernmental is the same classification as it was the last time we had an ADM for intergovernmental. The ADM that used to be there for land claims was an MG10 as well. The classification is the same. The job description is essentially the same with some minor variations based on our priorities for devolution, et cetera.
Mr. Ostashek: I guess the question I was asking though is: is the range for all the ADMs in all departments an MG10?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I don't know. I can ask the Public Service Commission the question. This is not new for these positions at least.
Mr. Ostashek: I thank the minister for that. I'll get that when I get to the Public Service Commission.
If the minister will allow me, I just have one question that I missed when we were in land claims, and that is: when did the minister expect to have a full complement of staff in the Land Claims Secretariat?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I understand that the competition for the principal negotiators has closed and that there are discussions with the Public Service Commission with respect to job offers and that sort of thing. There is a position open for - maybe I'll just get the position names correct here - director of policy and mandates, and I don't know when that's going to competition. Depending on what happens, as I understand it, some people may have applied for the principal negotiator position inside the secretariat, so there may be a position opening as a result of the competition. There is also, I believe, a lands negotiator position vacant, and I don't know if that has gone to competition either.
I'm just looking at the vacancies in the organization chart here. The land negotiator is vacant, principal negotiator vacant, implementation analyst vacant, director of policy mandates vacant. Other than principal negotiators, I don't know when they're going to competition. They may already be at competition, for all I know.
Mr. Cable: On devolution, the Government Leader put out a press release the other day.
Are there any deal-breaker issues on the table that are, as yet, unresolved?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The big issue, of course, from the Yukon government's perspective, is the issue we call fiscal fairness, and that could well be a deal breaker. We don't know. We need to be satisfied that we don't essentially have to pay for the transfer of the program, and if we have sufficient resources to provide the program as we see it, then the transfer negotiations will proceed aggressively from June 1st onwards. Between now and June 1st, we're going to do analyses of the DIAND budgets - what it is precisely that they have put on the table. They say it's plenty. We don't know. So we'll have to go through that process before we know whether or not there's anything to talk about.
I believe that there quite possibly can be language satisfactory to all sides with respect to environmental liabilities. Certainly, from our perspective, if the federal government decided not to assume a clear commitment to take on past environmental liabilities, then that might well be a deal breaker, too.
But I think that we are in the ballpark, and there may be a reasonable agreement there.
My impression right now is that there is a tremendous will by all parties to negotiate. I think there is also recognition that negotiations will not be easy. Financial transfers are very, very important to us, given our constrained resources and given the size of this program. It's in the ballpark of $30 million. If we feel the program is underfunded and there is public expectation that we come up with any number of millions of dollars to supplement it, then obviously it would put tremendous strains on our budget and we would prefer that not to happen.
So, that issue of fiscal fairness is a big one.
Mr. Cable: As I understand it, what's going on between now and June 1 is more an assessment process than a negotiation process. Have I understood correctly what is happenning?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, it is an assessment of what the federal government has in its budget that they are intending to transfer to the Yukon government as part of this transfer. That's the process we're going through.
From our perspective, we went into the negotiations saying that we wanted some sort of notion that we would be able to provide services that are comparable to the provinces in similar circumstances. The federal government said, "No, we are not going to negotiate on that basis. We want you to agree absolutely that you will accept, up front, whatever the envelope is." We said, "No, we don't know what the envelope is." So, rather than trying to find language around that, the compromise was that before we get into the agreement-in-principle stage and negotiations on how the transfers were going to take place and how we were going to deal with employee concerns and all those details, we would first do due diligence in terms of determining how big the financial envelope is and do a preliminary assessment as to whether or not we can carry out our functions with the financial package available to us. That is what we will be doing between now and June 1.
Mr. Cable: What do you think is going on that would fall under the rubric of negotiations, or is it all assessment of the federal proposal?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, it's not so much assessment of the federal proposal; it is assessment of the federal budgets and the federal departments. We want to find out whether or not the money that they have identified for this program in the north, and what they are saying is on the table, is sufficient. It is a very difficult budget to pin down, because they have money flowing through from all sectors and in and out. They have I don't know how many positions over there that they fund from elsewhere and are not housed in the so-called budget. They have a number of positions on the books for which there is no money. They have some positions that are unfilled for which they have money. We have to tie all this down to get a sense of where this amoeba-like creature is going to take us. Once we pin it down, is it going to be sufficient? Is it so much money or are we going to be buying ourselves a lot of trouble?
Nobody wants to go through 10 months of obviously expensive negotiations and a lot of trouble - raise expectations - only to find that we are not even in the same ballpark. So, we want to determine whether or not we are in the same ballpark.
Mr. Ostashek: I just have one follow-up question on that, after the experience that we had with the federal government on the forestry transfer, where the financial envelope was agreed to by both sides and then reneged on when it came to signing the final documents.
I don't know if the minister has proceeded that far yet, but I would - and I guess I'll have to say this as a statement and the minister can reply to it if he likes - urge the minister that he get a commitment in writing from the federal government that that financial envelope - be it $30 million or $35 million, whatever it is - isn't changed in the eleventh hour after long, protracted negotiations, because what killed the forestry transfer a couple of years ago was the fact that the federal government wanted to cut the funding, basically, in half.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: To the extent that we can get commitments, that certainly will be a priority for us. I appreciate the member's concern on this point.
The negotiations that we had recently in Ottawa were complicated by the fact that a number of things that were in the federal devolution proposal we could not get into the memorandum of agreement - or letter of understanding, rather - to carry us to the next step. It was a source of some anxiety to us that if the policy statement couldn't be reflected in the agreement we signed, what was the problem? Certainly, First Nations and others expressed serious concerns about that.
Having said that, I don't want to do any Ottawa-bashing on this subject. I do believe there's a willingness at certain levels to complete this project and to do a good job at it, and I think there is a lot of goodwill on the part of all parties to the negotiations - the federal government, the First Nations and, most certainly, the Yukon government - and we're going to give it our best shot.
But, to take the member's point, we're not going to take any agreement simply because it's offered. We're going to take a good agreement, and it's got to be at least satisfactory, at least meet our needs; otherwise, there is no deal.
The member did ask whether or not the federal relations office was in this program. Yes, indeed, it is.
On Activity
On Intergovernmental Relations
Intergovernmental Relations in the amount of $513,000 agreed to
On Activity
On Policy
Chair: Is there any general debate?
On Activity
On Policy
Policy in the amount of $465,000 agreed to
On Public Communications Services
Chair: Is there any general debate?
Mr. Ostashek: I believe this is part of the new reorganization. If the member could just give us a quick view of it.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Okay, the public communications services branch split away from policy and communications as a separate entity. That reflects, in part, the government's priority that it places on public communications and public consultation, particularly. A major task for this branch will be to assist departments in designing consultation exercises that involve citizens in decisions and decision making, rather than simply talk to them through road shows.
The establishment of the branch has largely come from a reallocation of existing resources throughout the department. There is one new position.
On Activity
On Public Communications Services
Public Communications Services in the amount of $623,000 agreed to
Chair: Are there any questions on the supplementary information?
Mr. Ostashek: I was just reading through the supplementary information. Is there going to be any change to the photography section of this department? We did do some reorganization in there, and I was just wondering if the minister is satisfied with the way it's set up now or if he's going to be re-examining it.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I'm not aware of any changes to the photography section. I believe there's just one photographer, and I believe that that photographer will remain. I don't think anybody's contemplating more photographers. That's all I know.
Chair: We will go to page 2-13, aboriginal language services. Is there any general debate?
On Aboriginal Language Services
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The main estimates show a budget of $834,000 for aboriginal language services. The actual budget provided by the federal government is $830,000. This estimate was put forward before the federal government tabled their budget, so there is a small change. Of course, it's all recoverable from the federal government. It's a decrease of $75,000 from the previous year. The program was simply scaled down due to reduced transfers from the federal government.
On Activity
On Aboriginal Language Program
Aboriginal Language Program in the amount of $834,000 agreed to
On French Language Services
Chair: Is there any general debate on French language services?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: There's a $69,000 decrease in the Bureau of French Language Services budget due to the reduction in the Canada/Yukon funding agreement. The reductions, in our view, have not resulted in reduced services to francophones. We've just re-allocated some of what does happen here, but the reduction is exclusively resulting from a change in the financial arrangement.
The program officer position at the Bureau of French Language Services is presently vacant and will only be filled for part of the year. Funding for the bilingual account manager position at the Queen's Printer has been reduced by 50 percent, which more accurately reflects the time spent working on French language issues by this position. There is a small increase in the advertising budget. That's about all.
On Activity
On French Language Program
French Language Program in the amount of $1,158,000 agreed to
On Bureau of Management Improvement
Chair: Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, the budget has increased by $42,000 from the forecast to allow for the staffing of the vacant director's position. It continues to provide audit and evaluation services and to advise government on management improvement, program effectiveness, et cetera.
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the Government Leader could bear with me while I go through this.
Under the Bureau of Management Improvement, there is a program called the service improvement program, and this came under an awful lot of fire in the previous government, primarily from the now Government Leader. I think I need to sort of go through the history of this program first.
Initially, the service improvement program was a program that came out of the Executive Council Office and a committee was struck to come up with the way that that was going to be implemented within the government. With this, there was a recognition letter from the minister responsible for that particular department somebody had a great suggestion, or sometimes there was a letter from the Government Leader.
The advertising for this program basically started and ended at the very beginning of this program. In addition, there was one particular case, which was the disc which breaks up chipseal, which got quite a bit of advertising later along in the program. This was not open to the public but primarily to employees.
Over the course of a number of years, the now Government Leader had a number of suggestions for the improvement of the service improvement program. Basically, one of the biggest objections that he had was that the service workers, or the people that were on the front lines, were no longer able to give suggestions to the program, and it was his contention that the cost to put on the program was now greater than the cost savings of having the program.
My question is that maybe this isn't such a bad program if you just go ahead and re-tool it. In B.C., rather than raising taxes, they have cut costs through their program and indeed, because this government is saying that they don't want to raise taxes, maybe they want to take a look at this program again?
So, for example, if it costs you $200, you can save $1 million. If an employee comes up with a really good suggestion, then you can give him some sort of cash reward in order that he can give you a suggestion that will save you $1 million.
Now, the reason I am talking about cash incentives is because- and this is just my perception from the past - although people, I'm sure, appreciated the letters from their ministers or from the Government Leader at the time, it may not have been enough incentive for people to bring forward suggestions. And there's no disrespect meant to the former ministers of the time.
Now, in the British Columbia government, they have an employee recognition program. Basically, they have a 12-point introduction to it and what it says is that the employee recognition program is a primary means of encouraging employee initiative and creativity. It recognizes that a positive supportive work environment has a direct bearing on employee initiative and creativity.
The employee recognition program and its predecessor have generated net annual or one-time savings of over $44 million since 1990, and the employee involvement is a proven and profitable business strategy. It also says that improvements have not only transformed the work processes, they have also, in some cases, transformed work environments. "We have seen situations," it says, "of low-trust, high-grievance work environments become happy, productive, supportive workplaces." It says that the keys to a successful employee involvement program are, first and foremost, management support followed by effective organization, wide communications.
Now, I know that a lot of positions became entrenched in the last government, but it's my hope - and I can pass on this information from B.C. to the government now - that there will be some, at least, review of successful programs everywhere else in Canada, particularly ones that work as well as the B. C. program, and I was hoping that the minister would at least have the committee that still exists - although it hasn't met for some time - take a look at this program. Would he be willing to do that?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to ask the committee and the new director, when a director is hired, to look at the other programs and see whether or not they can provide better services. I have not had an opportunity to seriously consider providing any direction on this matter myself, but certainly the member makes a good point, and I think it would be worthwhile to see how the improvement program can be improved.
I believe, though, that the program - even though I was clearly not the biggest fan of the program - did take in suggestions from the public as well as employees, and I've got a whole briefing note on all the suggestions that they've taken here and ones that they've approved and ones they haven't. I know these have been read out in the Legislature before. If the members want the information, they want me to read it out or they want me to provide it in a legislative return or if they want it at all, I'd be happy to accommodate them.
One task, of course, is going to be to hire the director, and there are other issues that this branch must address quickly, as well. Under the Environment Act, it is required that we do an audit of the government's performance under the act and meet its responsibilities, and that has to be done this year, so that's a major project for this branch.
So, it does do audit evaluations, and does manage this service improvement program. But, I will take the member's suggestion and will ask the branch to do a review of other programs, and particularly ones she mentioned, and they can do an evaluation as to the effectiveness. It would involve the union, of course, in assessments, to see whether or not we can improve the improvement program.
Mrs. Edelman: I was fortunate enough to be on the ground level, beginning stages of a very similar program with the City of Whitehorse, and it was tremendously successful. And, if it's put together properly, then I think that this is really an opportunity to empower employees and to make a more efficient government to service the people of the Yukon, and I'm pleased that the Government Leader is going to be at least looking at that.
Mr. Ostashek: I just have to get on the public record here, because I'm glad to hear that the minister has had a bit of a change of heart about the service improvement program, because I think it was one of the better things that was implemented for cost savings in government. As the minister said when he was on his feet, there were many, many recommendations that came back - not all of them got the exposure that the disc did, but there were many good initiatives that came forward that did save money for the government in the long term. And, I believe that the program was effective and could possibly be made more effective by restructuring it. You can always improve on programs.
I guess my concern is that we have an increase in the budget here and the minister has given the explanation that they're going to be hiring a director. So, is the minister saying this is a new position in the Bureau of Improvement Management, because the departments generally carry the money in their estimates for any vacant positions that are in government, so I would have thought that that director position would have been included in the '96-'97 forecast of $188,000.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I understood in the forecast estimate for '96-'97 that there was a projection that there would be less funding required for this particular branch, thanks to the departure of the previous director. So, that's why we're going to 230 - and that's largely reflected in the fact that there's going to be a full year's cost for this.
With respect to the personnel, I'm not aware of any other than three personnel that will be in this branch, and there's been no change in terms of the program organization whatsoever, to my knowledge.
So, at some point soon, presumably there will be a recruitment and the position will be filled.
Mr. Ostashek: So, what the minister is saying to me, then, is that the 1996-97 forecast did not include funding for a full year for a director. Is that what the minister is trying to tell me here now in the Legislature?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is correct.
On Activity
On Internal Audit
Internal Audit in the amount of $230,000 agreed to
Bureau of Management Improvement in the amount of $230,000 agreed to
On Bureau of Statistics
Chair: Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: There is a decrease of $217,000, due to the completion of two cost-recoverable projects: the second cycle of the national longitudinal health and children's survey, $181,000, and the high-risk alcohol use qualitative study for $36,000. These surveys are under contract to Statistics Canada every second year. The next cycle will be next year.
The organization of the branch remains the same.
On Activities
On Management and Information Services
Management and Information Services in the amount of $282,000 agreed to
On Operations and Research Services
Operations and Research Services in the amount of $358,000 agreed to
Bureau of Statistics in the amount of $640,000 agreed to
On Office of the Commissioner
Chair: Is there any general debate?
On Activity
On Office of the Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner in the amount of $119,000 agreed to
On Cabinet Offices
Chair: Is there general debate?
The estimate shows a decrease of $284,000, or 18 percent, from the forecast. The forecast amount for 1996-97 contains the severance costs of the outgoing Cabinet offices and the transition costs of the new government. Apart from that it remains essentially the same.
On Activities
On Ministers
Ministers in the amount of $113,000 agreed to
On OIC Personnel
OIC Personnel in the amount of $1,137,000 agreed to
Cabinet Offices in the amount of $1,250,000 agreed to
On Cabinet Commissions
Chair: Any general debate?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would recommend at this point - I had committed to providing some information and it's not here, so I would recommend that we either take a break now and come back in 10 minutes, or we skip it and continue to the next branch.
Mr. Ostashek: Maybe this is one we could just set aside, then we could get the answers for the other information we have coming and deal with it all at the same time, if the minister's agreeable to that.
Cabinet Commissions stood over
On Public Inquiries and Plebiscites
Chair: Is there any general debate?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: There's one dollar forecast. There are no expenditures planned under this authority. The $112,000 forecast included $32,000 for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board and $80,000 for the Hughes inquiry. Both inquiries are complete.
On Activities
On Public Inquiries
Public Inquiries in the amount of one dollar agreed to
On Plebiscites
Plebiscites in the amount of one dollar agreed to
Public Inquiries and Plebiscites in the amount of one dollar agreed to
Chair: Is it the members' wish to take a 10-minute break at this time?
Recess
Chair: I will call Committee of the Whole to order.
We are dealing with Executive Council Office, Cabinet commissions. Is there any general debate?
On Cabinet Commissions
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I have some information, first of all, about questions that were asked previously and also about Cabinet commissions, and I will hand it out.
Some member, I think it was the Opposition Leader, asked about ADMs in the government and whether or not they are all MGNs. The answer is no. There are 19 ADMs. There are six MG10-level ADMs. There are 12 MG9-level ADMs and there's one MG8-level ADM.
The member asked in general general debate for information about Government of Yukon purchasing stats and what happened recently. For this last quarter, we've been able to determine that, from January 1st to March 31st, 1997, there were 1,260 requisitions for an amount of $3,563,000 worth of products. This compares to a similar period last year of 1,139 requisitions for a dollar amount of products of $4,378,000.
First of all, before we get into the commissions, I'll hand out a summary sheet of the Executive Council Office organization. We've just taken everything that I've passed out in papers before and just sort of rolled it up into one sheet so it's easier to understand.
I also have information about the Cabinet commissions and budgets, and I'll pass that out now. What I've tried to do is separate out the amount of money that was in the Cabinet commission budget, the amount of money in the department budgets, the amount of money that's still being spent in departments on these subjects, the amount of money that was spent over the last four years in these areas, so that members can get an appreciation for what the comparisons are. It is very difficult to provide comparisons, but I've done my best,