Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, December 10, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

TRIBUTES

International Human Rights Day

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I rise today to pay tribute to Yukon people who are joining together to recognize International Human Rights Day.

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on this day in 1948.

This year, the Yukon Human Rights Commission invited Yukon people to "shine your light on human rights" and sponsored a candle-lighting ceremony in the lobby of the Yukon government administration building over the lunch hour.

The ceremony was heartfelt and uplifting. I want to also acknowledge that Yukon College has held a ceremony today in recognition of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

Considering the motions that we're scheduled to debate today, it was moving to hear the chair of the Human Rights Commission emphasize the need to, above all, resolve conflicts without violence. People individually have a personal responsibility to examine their own behaviour and ensure that they are observing all human rights. In plain language, article 29 states, "We all have a responsibility to people around us, and we can only develop fully as individuals by taking care of each other. This includes the responsiblity to educate ourselves about situations where human rights have been restricted or denied.

I'm pleased to inform the House that the Yukon Film Society is sponsoring a film presentation on human rights at the Whitehorse Public Library on Sunday night. I encourage all Yukon people to do what they can to shine light on the issue of human rights here and all around the world.

Thank you.

Mr. Phillips: On behalf of the Yukon Party caucus and the office of the official opposition, I rise today to offer our support to the International Human Rights Day.

The purpose of the International Human Rights Day is to commemorate the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly on December 10, 1940.

Since its establishment, the United Nations has played a key role in the protection and promotion of human rights around the world. Not only has it developed international human rights standards, the United Nations has also intervened in cases where human rights of individuals have been violated or abused.

The United Nations has also taken an active role in encouraging various countries to ratify international human rights laws to ensure that human rights are valued worldwide. The declaration was drafted by Canadian lawyer John Humphrey, and today marks its 50th anniversary.

In light of this significant anniversary, celebrations will be held throughout the year, and the Minister of Justice has mentioned the ones that will be held in the territory.

While we take time to celebrate the event, it is important that we also recognize the continuing need for human rights education and the protection of basic human rights throughout the world.

As Canadians, we are truly fortunate to live in what has been recognized as the best place in the world to live, where we are able to enjoy many democratic rights and freedoms. With regret, there are other countries that are not as fortunate - those countries that are filled with atrocities of turmoil and strife on a day-to-day basis and where freedom of speech is not granted and personal rights are abused.

I believe it's important that we not take for granted the free environment we now possess, and I also believe it's incumbent upon each and every one of us to join together to ensure that all forms of discrimination do not have a place in the Yukon and to serve an example for other regions of Canada and the world.

Mr. Cable: I rise on behalf of the Liberal caucus to recognize the International Human Rights Day. We Canadians need to recognize that the large majority of the world's population lives under the dictator's boot or lives in countries where the candles of democracy and human rights barely flicker.

We need to recognize also that in our own country, many of our own rights do not have a long tradition. The oppression of the family compact in Upper Canada is only 150 years old. The Riel Rebellion is only 100 years old. Female and aboriginal voting rights are products of this century. Here in the Yukon, our human rights legislation and our ombudsman, both part of the checks and balances on discrimination and on the system's abuse, are recent innovations.

We need, Mr. Speaker, to always recognize that the first step to losing our rights and our freedoms is to take them for granted.

Speaker: Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be produced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: Before proceeding to Question Period, the Chair will provide a ruling on the question of privilege raised on December 9, 1997, by the Member for Porter Creek South.

The member met the notice requirement found in Standing Order 7(1)(b) by submitting a written notice to the Office of the Speaker at 10:00 a.m. on December 9.

Standing Order 7(4) states that the Speaker must rule on (a) whether there appears, on the face of it, to be a case of breach of privilege, and (b) whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity.

With regard to whether the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity, the government House leader stated that he felt that the matter should have been raised the previous day. He referred to the ruling made on April 24, 1997, on the question of privilege raised by the Member for Kluane. That ruling has been reviewed and does not apply to this situation. The Chair found that the Member for Kluane was raising a point of order and not a question of privilege. Points of order must be raised at the time that the event occurs.

There are many precedents of this House where members have raised questions of privilege on the next sitting day after the event being questioned has taken place. This allows members time to review Hansard to give careful consideration to the matter before deciding whether they will raise it in the House. Also, the House indicated its intent that a matter could be raised on a following sitting day when it adopted Standing Order 7(1)(b) and its requirement for written notice.

The question for the Chair to decide on, then, is whether the Member for Porter Creek South has raised a question which, on the face of it, is a possible breach of privilege. The Chair finds that there is not a breach of privilege. The refusal of the government to produce a document requested by a member is neither a point of order nor the basis of a question of privilege.

The question of whether a document should be produced is a matter of deliberation for the House. It can be discussed at a number of times, including Question Period, debate on the estimates of the department and on a motion for the production of papers. It, however, is not a matter for the Speaker to rule on.

There is one further point the Chair would comment on. The Member for Porter Creek South said that a media person seemed to be receiving favoured treatment over members of the House in terms of access to a publicly available document. It is not the place of the Chair to investigate such allegations but the Chair is sure that ministers would not want restrictions to apply to members of this House that do not apply to anyone else.

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Workers' Compensation Board, administration costs

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the minister responsible for the Yukon Workers' Compensation, Health and Safety Board.

Mr. Speaker, the Workers' Compensation Board has serious problems. It is suffering from a major hemorrhage in its cost of administration. Based on the size of the insured workers, the Yukon's board has the highest administration costs of any compensation board in Canada. In 1990, these administration costs totalled some $1.5 million. Six years later, these costs have escalated to $4.6 million, and that does not include the administration costs for vocational aid disability management services.

So, effectively the board's total administration costs are some $5 million a year.

What does the minister plan to do about these escalating costs?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, first of all, I would say to the member opposite that, as the critic, he should be aware that there is a board responsible for deliberating on such matters, which is made up of a chair that's appointed through consultation with both employers and employees. There are two employer representatives, who have been nominated by business organizations, and two labour representatives, nominated by labour organizations. Both business and injured workers have identified administrative costs as a concern.

The increases that the member talks about did not occur solely in the last year that I've been the minister responsible; as a matter of fact, there were deficits run by the board in 1994, 1995 and 1996. I am concerned about it. I've passed those concerns on to the chair. The chair is conducting a review and doing some comparisons. They don't want to see people comparing apples and oranges. They want to make sure that we're looking at appropriate statistical comparisons when it comes to administrative costs.

I, myself, would like to see this done thoroughly and to see reductions in those costs where possible.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, when a patient is hemorrhaging, the first job of the attending physician is to try and stop the bleeding. The minister has to accept his responsibility and become part of the solution, rather than just hide behind the board and become part of the problem.

In 1999, the Workers' Compensation assessments are expect to increase between 30 percent and 60 percent. Businesses in Yukon simply cannot afford such an exorbitant increase. I would like the minister to explain what he is going to do about this approaching emergency.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member is talking in as colourful and as alarming language as he possibly can as he reads out the question that was written up for him this morning, but I have to take issue with the member saying that I'm hiding behind a board. Mr. Speaker, the legislation is clear that there are employer and employee representatives on the board that are charged with certain responsibilities to oversee the fund and to protect and to pay out claims to injured workers.

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to hiding behind a board. In actual fact, what I'm doing is involving citizens of this territory in the decision-making process, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

With regard to him alleging that pieces must be picked up, I would say that I have been trying to pick up the pieces of the problems of the Compensation Board. Under the Yukon Party, we saw incredible turmoil in the board. I had to immediately try to seek a neutral chair. I had to hire a workers' advocate. I had to try and get an occupational health and safety review back up. I had to try and increase the accountability of the board to the stakeholders. All those steps are being undertaken along with the review of administrative costs.

So, we have an agenda. We're implementing it, and it's working.

Mr. Jenkins: The change came about after the act was altered under the previous NDP government, Mr. Speaker, and costs escalated accordingly after the new act was assented to. Now the minister has been given a period of grace on the rate increase because the Workers' Compensation Board has received a $1.7 million in additional revenue from an insurance company.

So, will the minister here today agree to establish an operational audit of the Compensation Board?

The minister has that authority under section 99 of the Workers' Compensation Act, where it says: "The minister may, by written order, require the board to investigate any matter under its jurisdiction in the manner requested by the minister." So, the minister has that authority. Will he undertake a management audit of the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. Harding: The compensation system in this territory has the lowest average rates in the country. We have one of, if not the only, fully funded board in the country. I don't see the crisis the member talks about. We're trying to deal with a situation left to us by the Yukon Party, which was a shambles - ministers interfering in the adjudication of individual cases, no credibility by either stakeholders or the board. We're trying to turn all that around. I think we've made some good strides in that respect.

Mr. Speaker, I only wish the member, who's the critic, would have stuck around for more than half an hour last night before he headed out the back exit door at the annual information session, because there were some good discussions with the stakeholders about the issues that he's raising here today.

Question re: Workers' Compensation Board, administration costs

Mr. Jenkins: Once again, my question is to the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board. Mr. Speaker, the minister must act now. Injured workers and businesses can't afford any further delays. The Compensation Board has been running a deficit for the last three years. In 1996, the deficit was $4.1 million. This situation cannot be allowed to continue any longer. The asset base of the Compensation Board is being seriously eroded every day, and the minister refuses to act. So I am asking the minister, as a first step, to call for an operational audit, and then take whatever legislative action is required to turn this alarming situation around.

Will the minister give that undertaking, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Harding: The member charges that the minister refuses to act. I charge that the member refuses to listen, because his questions were obviously written out for him this morning. If he would listen to the responses that I'm giving him, first of all, we've put in place a neutral chair for the board. We've gotten advisory groups up and running. I met with the stakeholders just last week - all the stakeholders; I believe there were 14 of them there from business and labour - to talk about where the board's going.

These advisory groups are going to be making recommendations on administrative costs, on policy changes. We have a workers' advocate now in place - something that could not be brought to life by the previous administration - which has given fair access to the system by injured workers. We are trying in many different avenues, including occupational health and safety regulation areas, to try and be more preventive in our approach to occupational injuries.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have a thorough agenda underway. The stakeholders that I met with last week seemed to be fairly accepting of that, and they want to see progress. I think that they're willing to work with us to those ends.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the member opposite should be insulting the good work of the people on that board that are representing employers, as he's doing here in this House today.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Speaker, virtually everyone but the minister realizes that there is a crisis emerging in the Compensation Board. At last night's meeting there were 30 people in attendance, of which 14 we were board members or employees of the Workers' Compensation Board. Another five were in attendance, three of us from this Legislature and two assistants. Another individual was there transcribing the proceedings. So, that's what took place at the meeting last night.

Yes, there was good discussion. Yes, I stayed for part of it, and yes, I left early. The minister did come in late. He doesn't mention that.

Mr. Speaker, injured workers are not benefited by having their compensation awards eaten up by high administration costs. If the end results of all these additional areas of study are that administration costs will be driven down, so be it. But, what the Workers' Compensation Board is set up to do is to compensate injured workers and rehabilitate them. They are not happy, businesses are not receiving value for their money and the injured employees are not benefiting. There is major cause for concern.

I would like to ask the minister to explain why he isn't concerned and why he doesn't want to uncover the reasons for these high administration costs.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, I can assure the member that I was there for the portion of the meeting that I was supposed to be there for - that I was asked to be there for. The member opposite stuck around long enough - just long enough - to count the people in the room and then he was out the back door.

But, Mr. Speaker, he should have listened to the discussion, because he's not listening to me, he's not listening to the board, he's not listening to the stakeholders. He doesn't have any foundation for what he is saying here in this Legislature today.

I have met with all these people. I have talked to them. We have identified the concerns, one of them being administration, and we are actively working on them. And the board itself and the chair of the board and the employer reps on the board, who have the ability to set assessment rates, are also working on them - as well as the labour representatives.

So, we think we have made progress and we will continue to work with our advisory groups on the stakeholder base to make more progress in terms of improving the system.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, we have another example of the NDP calculator at work, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately for the minister the buck stops at his desk. The total assessments do not cover the injured workers' costs and the administration. There is a shortfall. There is a significant shortfall and it's growing each year.

The Compensation Board operates under a legislative framework, and that minister, Mr. Speaker, is responsible for that framework. And when something goes wrong with the board, it is ultimately the minister who must endeavour to fix the problem.

Can I at least get the commitment from the minister that he will re-examine the act and the powers of the board in order to see what can be done to reduce the board's exorbitant administration costs? Will the minister give that undertaking, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, the member really must drop his written-out questions for him on the supplementaries. I've answered this question, now, I think, three or four times.

With regard to the board and the situation, we have the lowest average assessment rate in the country. We have one of, if not the only, fully funded boards in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the member opposite is advocating the raising of assessment rates to deal with any of the three deficits that were run under the Yukon Party administration of the board.

Mr. Speaker, I know the board is working very hard to deal with those shortfalls. I've been working very hard, since I came into this portfolio, to deal with the shambles and the mess that was left by the previous administration at the Workers' Compensation Board.

We have made progress. I had a meeting last week with the stakeholders of the board to talk about an act review, and we were looking at the fall of 1999 for that.

On the administration side and the costs there, that's been an identified concern by the stakeholders. I'm working with them on the formation of advisory groups so they can participate in an analysis of the administration costs and also some analyses of the policies.

We've hired a workers' advocate. We have a neutral chair. We have some continuity on the board. And, Mr. Speaker, I think we're making progress and we're going to continue to work toward making more.

Question re: Workers' Compensation Board, addressing deficits

Mr. Cable: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions for the same minister on the same topic, the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board. Now one of the things I got out of the meeting last night is that the present low premium levels and expenses of the board are being maintained in part by eating into the capital of the board's investments. That alarm bell had been rung by the previous board chairman last November. There was an article in one of the newspapers that said that in the previous two years - that's previous to last November - the board ran $2-million to $3-million deficits and the minister today has just confirmed that.

Just to see if we have any common ground, does the minister share the view that if the board is to maintain its investments intact and deplete its funds, it is going to have to raise premiums, reduce operating expenses or do some combination of those two things?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems - or at the time it wasn't a problem, but one of the things - that happened when the new act came about was that there were some major changes in the assessments rates; for example, some of the rates that used to be in the $7.00 range for some of the more high-risk industries were reduced to around $3.00 and there hasn't been an increase in those rates since 1989.

So, with regard to the member's question, I would just say that I think the board has got some challenges to deal with and he is probably correct in his analysis of the situation - that it is going to take some combination of factors, including a good analysis of administrative costs, to ensure that they can continue to have a good stable fund there and keep it fully funded for the benefit of injured workers in this territory.

Mr. Cable: Well, I thank the minister for that response. Does the minister also share the view that the administration costs of the board, as a percent of assessments or revenues or on the basis of dollar per claim process, are higher than the national average and, in fact, significantly higher than in some of the smaller jurisdictions?

Hon. Mr. Harding: I have raised the issue of administrative costs with the new chair of the board, who I know the member opposite supported. Actually, he asked me. Together, we worked on the issue to get the person appointed to the position. I've had extensive conversations with the chair of the board about this issue. He feels that there is a problem, but that perhaps it is not as great as the member from the Yukon Party, who just questioned me, would have people believe. He is doing a full analysis of the issue. He's hoping to make some changes. He's hoping to involve both the employer and the labour representatives on the board in those changes.

He cautioned me, however, that he would provide me with a good, statistical comparison and that a lot of the comparisons with other jurisdictions do not apply. Sometimes you can get yourself into a situation where you're comparing apples and oranges.

I hope to have more thorough information for the members in the next sitting about changes that are being undertaken in the area.

Mr. Cable: Now, the board's off to a good start, I think, on working up a strategic plan and is setting up committees to provide input, but there are a number of questions relating to expense levels and to the report done by the board's fund manager into projected premium levels that this House could profitably question the board on.

Now, the board has appeared before this House before in the past, during the Yukon Party administration, to provide members with information and to be questioned on current issues. Is the minister prepared to ask the president and chairman to appear before the House in the spring to discuss these various issues?

Hon. Mr. Harding: It is something that I would certainly consider. The member is quite right, the board did appear under the administration of the Yukon Party. At that time, the board was in a state of shambles. There was a lot of upheaval at the board. It is interesting to note, however, that these are the first questions today on the Workers' Compensation Board that I've had in the entire session of the legislative sitting. I think that says something about the good work of the board in terms of trying to deal with a situation that was once quite chaotic.

There's still a lot of work to do, Mr. Speaker, and we're going to continue to roll up our sleeves and work with the stakeholders - injured workers and employers - to try and get that work done. So, I will give that request serious consideration for the spring.

Question re: Development assessment process

Ms. Duncan: My question is for the Government Leader. I wouldn't want him to go to the first ministers conference without feeling that he had questions from the Liberal caucus.

The federal government, the CYFN and the Yukon government set December 19 as a date for substantive policy matters to be finalized regarding the DAP and forthcoming DAP legislation. Would the Government Leader advise if that deadline will be met and when the draft legislation will be ready?

Mr. Livingston: The work has been ongoing with the other two parties - the Government of Canada and the Council of Yukon First Nations. During the past three or four weeks, we have had to re-jig our time lines in order for us to complete work on outstanding issues.

Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, let's try the question again. I'd like to ask the Government Leader - the DAP commissioner has indicated that they've had to re-jig their deadlines - this question: will the substantive policy issues be resolved and draft legislation be ready early in the new year?

Mr. Livingston: The work, as I said, is ongoing. The re-jigged time lines are set as a goal to have the work on outstanding issues completed by December 19. What this will do is to provide some time over the following six or eight weeks to finalize the draft legislation.

One of the very important stages, in our government's view, is to provide an opportunity for public consultation in the Yukon on DAP legislation, and that will be provided in the first part of the new year, and that would be a three-party process where we'd have the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Government of Canada and the Yukon government bringing forward the draft federal legislation for comment from various interested parties in the Yukon.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, would the DAP commissioner be precise on some dates? When will that consultation on draft legislation take place?

Mr. Livingston: I thank the member for the question. Certainly I can be precise. We anticipate that the consultation will take place either beginning in late February or early March, and running through for at least 60 days.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Livingston: Pardon me? The member asked me if that's as precise as I can get. We have three parties working on the time lines, and we've been faced with some considerable challenges ensuring that the three parties do sit. We've pressed very hard for additional meetings. Finally we were able to get some additional meetings this fall, in order for us to try to resolve outstanding issues. We feel this is important legislation for the Yukon - for developers and for interveners - so we anticipate that the consultation will take place, as I said, in the first part of the new year, March and April, in all likelihood, and that the federal legislation should be ready for the House later on in 1998. I would anticipate that we would see the DAP come into force in January of 1999. That kind of a time line is what we're looking at.

Question re: Map produced by Department of Tourism, mistakes in

Mr. Phillips: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Yesterday in the House, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Tourism about the real map, a map that was produced by the minister's department, which appears to be incorrect in many areas. The minister was going to bring back information for me. I understand today, Mr. Speaker, that there were 18,000 copies of this map printed, at $1.20 a piece, for a cost to the Yukon taxpayer of $21,600. The map is going to have to be reprinted.

Can the minister tell us what the process was for proofing the map? I'm sure that the Department of Tourism must have had an opportunity to proof this map before it went to its final publication.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, the Department of Tourism has managed to get back to me on this matter. The map, which is to be released for next summer's tourism operation, was proofed by the Native Language Centre and the aboriginal language units of the Yukon.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether anybody in the Department of Tourism is concerned from time to time about any maps that are produced in the territory, about whether or not the map is correct, and did they have an opportunity to look at the map before it went to print and, if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it had been, I believe, looked at by the marketing department of the Department of Tourism. Mistakes were identified and, certainly, it has now been sent back and is being renegotiated.

Mr. Phillips: Well, the minister's not very clear, Mr. Speaker. He didn't answer my first question either, when I asked him what the cost would be to the taxpayer. So I'd like the minister to get back on that.

But it's not clear from the minister in the answer to the last question, Mr. Speaker, whether or not they looked at the map prior to it going to printing or whether they looked at the map after they received copies of it. The normal process, in the past anyway, is that officials tended to look at these kinds of things before they printed 18,000 of them.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the department is following the established process, and I understand that the dollar figure for a plate change, which is what it will have to be, will be approximately $800, which will be certainly incorporated into the department's budget.

But also let me say, Mr. Speaker, that deadline pressures and exercise of artistic license are not excuses of this government and of this administration. As a matter of fact, as I can quote from the Whitehorse Star on Monday, August 12, 1996, of the previous administration being in at that time in government, "A gentleman came in from California last week, was on a fishing trip and he picked up this fishing synopsis. He looked at the cover and said, 'What the hell is going on here? What the hell is the Yosemite National Park doing on a Yukon fishing guide?'"

Although, certainly, Mr. Speaker, this government is working to endeavour to correct these mistakes and certainly ...

Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his answer?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: ... this government has, Mr. Speaker, identified these mistakes before they were brought out into the public so as not to embarrass the Yukon at large as the previous administration has.

Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his answer?

Question re: Land, excessive lot inventory

Mrs. Edelman: I'm not too sure about this, but my question is for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. It concerns the holding costs that YTG is paying on its inventory of residential lots. We've spoken about this before - actually, just recently.

Now, the recent Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996, pointed out that the Yukon government has approximately $25 million tied up in land inventory. The Auditor General suggested that the Yukon government simply has too many lots. As a result of this, the Yukon government is losing over $1 million a year because of excessive holding costs and these excessive costs reduce the revenue that the government could obtain if, instead, the money was invested elsewhere.

What steps have been taken since March to reduce what the Auditor General has described as excessive holding costs?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I really wanted to answer her question before I left, so if the member doesn't mind, I'll pick up this question, because it does relate to the Ministry of Finance and government financial policy.

The member is quite right that the land inventory right now is excessively high. Historically, it's been in the neighbourhood of $13 million to $15 million in land held for sale. Now, it is running in the $25-million to $30-million range. A large portion of this land is the result of a very aggressive residential lot construction program in the City of Whitehorse in the Copper Ridge area.

While I personally agree with the Auditor General that there is a problem, I must say, to be consistent with the answer that I gave to the other member the other day, who was asking questions about the Auditor General's report, that that was a matter of a political decision made by the politicians to build a lot of lots in the City of Whitehorse and run the inventory to the levels that it is at today. It was the subject of a lot of debate in this House.

So, while I agree with the Auditor General, I do not believe that the Auditor General's place is to interfere in our political discussions.

Mrs. Edelman: Well, regardless of whether or not it was a political decision, the main problem, according to the Auditor General, is that the government has too much inventory - approximately a three and a half year supply, and that was in 1996. Now in comments to the Auditor General, the Yukon government responded that the inventory was closer to two years. Can the minister - and this might actually apply more to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services - tell the House what the current inventory is and is it up or down since the Auditor General made his observations?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the inventory is slightly up because the decision was made to continue to undertake the land development that was planned last year into this summer, but it is still in the $25-million to $30-million range.

This issue about the amount of lots is a significant issue. The political argument that took place around this issue was that there was a concern that not only were there too many lots being constructed and not only was there too much cash held in land for sale causing lost interest income, but there was also another concern that it was artificially propping up the local economy, particularly with respect to the road and lot construction industry.

At one point or other, when there is a glut of lots on the market and the government retrenches, they will fail to provide what people expect, which is a continuing level of activity in this particular area. That was the nature of the political discussion that took place.

So once again, I agree with the member and it is something that we will have to take into account when we consider the amounts of cash we tie up in any particular area, particularly land development, when we're constructing next year's budget and try to, on the one hand, reduce the existing land inventory and number two, the land that we do develop ought to be lands that we have some reasonable assurance there is a market for.

But once again, I will say it for the record because the member raised the issue in the context of the Auditor General's report, that I agree with the Auditor General, but I do think that that comment is misplaced, given the political discussion that took place in this Legislature.

Mrs. Edelman: Well, Mr. Speaker, certainly land development from this perspective is a little bit different than it is from the municipal perspective. From the municipal perspective, it is very important that land be released into the market, that people build on it and that taxes are raised for the municipalities. That is always important on a municipal level, and it's important to remember that municipal block funding has not gone up in almost 11 years and that we need to keep that money in the economy.

Now, the Yukon government said in their response to the Auditor General that their goal was to strive to reduce the amounts of funds tied up in the inventory, as the minister has said. Has any progress been made by your government toward achieving this goal? The Minister of Community and Transportation Services said on a previous occasion that the minister is not interested in selling any lots at anything less than development cost, because they would lose money. Yet, at the same time they are already losing around a $1 million a year by holding on to too many lots. It looks like a losing situation. Now, what options are the government pursuing to fix the problem?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, there are a number of factors to take in to account. Obviously, the amount of money that we invested in the lots is money that the Yukon taxpayer deserves to have recovered.

Secondly, the simple solution to unload lots below cost on the marketplace will have a significant effect on the market for lots, generally, and, we have to be very, very careful to not disturb the existing marketplace.

So, anything that we do do, is going to have to require, at a minimum, plenty of consultation. I point out to the member that, while the municipal block funding has not increased significantly in the last little while, the equivalent of block funding for the Yukon government, the formula financing transfer, has decreased in the last little while and that does create some urgency in the situation for us.

Clearly, as I said before, we have to first of all determine whether or not we should build more lots. How can we reasonably dispose of some of the lots we already have in inventory? The bulk of the land inventories is really found up the hill at Copper Ridge and Granger. That is where it is now. And, that's where the problem has come forward.

But, I'm certain that, when we get to Committee estimates, we will have a good opportunity to explore this discussion more thoroughly in a manner that allows for some dialog.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed, and we will proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 70

Clerk: Motion No. 70, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Speaker: It is moved by the Member for Klondike

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the proposed user fee charges for air navigation services in Canada will add to the cost of air service, specifically air cargo, in the north, and have a significant impact on tourism, exploration and the cost of basic goods; and

THAT this House urges NAV Canada to reconsider its proposal to replace the air transportation tax with user fees so that northern Canadians do not bear any additional costs than what is currently being charged for air navigation services.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, by way of a little background on NAV Canada, NAV Canada is a private sector, non-share capital corporation, which now owns and operates Canada's civil air navigation services. It used to be referred to under Transport Canada as ANS.

Canada's air navigation system coordinates the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in Canadian domestic air space and international air space assigned to Canadian control. It provides air traffic control, flight information services, weather briefings, airport advisory service, air navigation and approach aids.

The responsibility for this country's ANS network and facilities were transferred from the federal government to NAV Canada on November 1, 1996, for $1. 5 billion.

They're Canadian dollars, Mr. Speaker, which is reassuring.

Some people say that this was a giveaway. Yet when one analyzes what is transpiring at the present date, the burden of responsibility for the costs incurred to operate it are now being borne by the users.

The air navigation facilities include seven area control centres and over 100 airport control towers and flight service stations. These facilities are supported by a network of 1,400 enroute and terminal aids to navigation and landing aids. NAV Canada has a mandate and responsibility to deliver a cost-effective, safe and efficient service to its clients and to its users. The company has been specifically structured to meet consumer needs and to encourage significant cooperation and dialogue with the aviation community.

NAV Canada is governed by a 15-member board of directors, and members are nominated by stakeholders representing aviation users, bargaining agents and the federal government. There are four independent directors, and then there's NAV Canada's president and CEO.

NAV Canada also has an advisory committee elected by associate members, empowered to analyze and make recommendations to the board of directors on any matter affecting ANS.

The safety of Canada's civil air navigation service is NAV Canada's highest priority. As a non-share capital corporation, run by a diverse and representative board of directors, the company does not focus on profit making, but, rather, can concentrate on running a safe, efficient, technologically up-to-date air navigation service.

Surplus revenues must be reinvested into the system. It is a not-for-profit corporation.

NAV Canada is one of the first private sector companies in the world to use a non-share capital, not-for-profit structure to commercialize a government service, which in itself is very interesting, Mr. Speaker.

Under the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, the company is enabled to charge for air navigation services. Following the announcement of its original fee proposal in May 1997, NAV Canada undertook consultation with users of Canada's air navigation services and other stakeholders. As a result of these user consultations, NAV Canada subsequently has deferred its plan to implement both the new user fees and the increases to existing fees to March 1998.

Under the original proposal, the fees were to be introduced on November 1, 1997. This fall, NAV Canada received confirmation from the Minister of Transport that its proposed user fees met the legislative charging principles in accordance with the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act. Consultation will take place over the next year to develop a user fee proposal that will provide for full cost recovery, scheduled for implementation on November 1, 1998.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is our window of opportunity to get involved in the consultation process. When these charges are fully implemented, the user charges will allow NAV Canada to operate independently of government funding, thereby completing the commercialization process.

When one looks at the resulting effect on this change in the way ANS is operated in Canada, Mr. Speaker, one sees tremendous additional costs burdening air users north of 60. Up to this point in time, there was a tax placed on the ticket of every commercially used airline passenger. These ticket taxes were used to fund the air navigation system. That will be slowly eliminated, and a new series of charges will be implemented.

The implementation side of it will take these fees and will allow NAV Canada to charge for aircraft movement, every NAV aid used, and for every mile travelled in Canadian airspace.

Under this proposal, new fees would be introduced for both domestic and international flights that land and take off in Canada. Increased charges will also apply to existing flights that use Canadian airspace but do not land or take off in Canada.

An example of this would be over the Pacific Ocean, west of British Columbia. When flights travel from, say, Anchorage to Seattle, they would be handed off from Anchorage centre to Vancouver centre and the resulting charges would be assessed to that airline or that air carrier.

What we're looking at in the north is an implementation of those same charges, Mr. Speaker, on all flights originating here. And if we want to use the example of our main carrier, based in Whitehorse, that flies Whitehorse-Dawson-Old Crow-Fairbanks-Dawson and return to Whitehorse, initially there will be a small change and a small increase in what they will be charged. Under the proposed user fees, based on the weight of the aircraft, they will be paying considerably more upon full implementation, because it doesn't matter if the aircraft is loaded with passengers or empty of passengers, whether it's loaded with freight or empty of freight. The air carrier will be assessed the same charge for landing and taking off in Whitehorse and for every air mile travelled in Yukon and every NAV aid used in Yukon.

These costs will eventually be placed on the backs of those using the service, and those using the service, Mr. Speaker, are you and I. It will have to be reflected in the ticket price and the cost of every pound of freight - I guess we should say, kilogram of freight - moved by these carriers.

In the fall of this year, Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the minister, Mr. Collenette, asking the Minister of Transport to ascertain what protection, if any, that Transport Canada included in the agreement for sale of air navigation services to NAV Canada for the north. I went on to say that it's my understanding that effective November 1, NAV Canada will be implementing user-fee charges based on the weight of the aircraft, the flight distance, frequency of takeoff and landings, and that these user fees replace the air transport tax previously charged on each ticket by the federal government. These new charges will cost northern airlines around $14 million annually.

I went on to say many northern communities are totally dependent upon air transport for both freight and passenger services and that increasing the cost of air service and air freight will have a significant impact on northern economies in terms of not just our basic cost of living, but in terms of tourism, mining, oil exploration and the cost of basic goods and infrastructure.

I went on and said that as Yukoners and other northern Canadians we already pay a premium for air transportation. When one looks at the cost of regularly scheduled airlines, east and west in Canada, and compares it to north and south, we are paying virtually double - virtually double for providing that same aircraft seat. It is in part due to competition or the lack of competition.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the proposed user-fee charges will add to the cost of air service, especially for those of us who have no other choice. Under section 24(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, the minister is empowered and may give direction to the corporation regarding air navigation services at or in respect of northern or remote locations. In view of the importance of reasonably priced air service to the north, I urge the minister to use his discretion under that section of the act and work out modifications to the proposed NAV Canada user-fee charges.

I went on to say that this would ensure that northern Canadians do not bear any additional cost, other than what is currently being charged.

The initial concept on privatization of NAV Canada was that costs were to be a wash. It was going to cost the same to operate the system under the previous method as it was under NAV Canada, and they would be funded in this manner.

By including this section in the commercialization act, the federal government must have recognized that there was going to be an impact on the northern air transport system. And in the fall, again, NAV Canada announced a revision and a review and a staged implementation of the proposed user fees and agreements on deferrals.

When one looks at what has transpired since the acquisition by NAV Canada, in the initial four-month period since they started, revenues were some $302 million and operating expenses totalled $235 million, which, after interest and depreciation, produced an operating surplus of some $26 million.

As a not-for-profit corporation, NAV Canada will use any surplus to maintain reserves, fund capital expenditures, reduce its debt levels, lower user fees or reinvest in its basic business.

The critical issue for NAV Canada is the financial issue. The company has recommended that the preliminary fee structures not affect aircraft weighing 5.7 ton - 12,500 pounds or less - which precludes most of the general aviation here in Yukon, but does include our main carrier based in Whitehorse.

These aircraft would have their user fees deferred for a one-year period, starting November 1, 1997, and the consultation program has begun. The industry will end at the end of 1997. By November 1998, NAV Canada is supposed to be no longer dependent on government funding. The existing air transport tax on each ticket, paid for by you and I when we travel, will no longer exist.

This area is the area in which we have to lobby our senior government for changes and to look at that section of the act that allows the minister some flexibility in providing the service north of 60.

Mr. Collenette did respond to my letter to him and his office and, like most elected officials responding, hid behind a multitude of issues and left me wondering, somewhat similar to spending time in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, when one asks a question of a minister. Did I phrase the question wrong, or did the minister just not understand what I had to say?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: The member opposite is suggesting that, generally, I am wrong. Well, on occasion, more often than not, we are right.

The minister did thank me for my letter of August and did point out that the act provides the Governor in Council, upon recommendation by the Minister of Transport, the authority to direct NAV Canada to provide air navigation services in northern and remote areas. This section is intended to enable the federal government to ensure that services are provided at locations where NAV Canada may not otherwise do so. It does not grant authority, however, to direct NAV Canada on matters pertaining to user charges.

It looks like we're going to get it one way or the other. We're going to be bearing the costs of NAV Canada.

The charging principle of this section - it deals with northern and remote services - states that the charges must not be higher for remote and northern services than charges for similar services utilized to a similar extent elsewhere in Canada. Again, this is an area that one has a difficult time coming up with an area in southern Canada that compares with an area in northern Canada, has the same type of services and is utilized to a similar extent. It's very, very hard to find parallels of this nature. In fact, some of these I've tried, and I cannot find a comparison of anything in the north to what is transpiring in southern Canada.

But the minister went on to say that NAV Canada's proposed fee system does not appear to contravene this principle. Mind you, if you can't find an example, I guess it doesn't contravene the principle. They went on to say that the corporation has chosen to implement system-wide charges, based on a system-wide allocation of costs.

Users of Canadian airports will benefit from the commercialization of air navigation services. The minister went on to say that, after November 1, 1998, when NAV Canada will be fully cost recoverable, the revenues obtained from over-flights - flights that do not land in Canada - and oceanic services that often fly over the north Atlantic, will leave approximately $610 million to be recovered for domestic arriving and departing aircraft.

And in order to fully recover the cost of providing services, the air transport tax, which was formerly used to pay for these services, would have cost users some $780 million in 1998 had it continued in its present form. The difference represents a saving of $170 million annually for users.

Again, what this serves to do, Mr. Speaker, is load the burden of responsibility for a lot of these incurred costs on northerners. We are going to be paying an additional premium to fly around the north or to ship anything into the north, because the air navigational system is utilized to a much lower extent in the north than the south. Our population and our distances between centres are very, very significant. Virtually all of the service into the north is north-south. There is very little east-west air transport service in Canada, north of 60.

How we can hope to realize these savings in the north is beyond me.

The minister went on to state that NAV Canada is expected to achieve further efficiencies and cost savings over the coming year, providing even more benefits to users. What these benefits are and will be is beyond me, Mr. Speaker. Basically, north of sixty, we're looking for decent airport facilities and decent advisory facilities. The one centre that was operating in the western Arctic, in Inuvik, has been closed down. The controlled airspace is now operated in the western part of Canada in the north, out of Edmonton Centre - very, very remote and very costly to operate, but very necessary, but very necessary, indeed, Mr. Speaker, when one considers that it's basically the only way to get between communities or to move goods between many communities north of 60.

The minister went on to say that the move from a tax-based to a cost-based system is intended to ensure a more equitable distribution of costs. Wow, that's a statement and a half. This will provide economic efficiency in the use of transportation services. Under the previous system, certain users contributed very little to the cost of the air navigation system - for example cargo operators, except for over flights and oceanic services, paid nothing toward the cost of a system that benefits them as well as other members of the aviation community.

Mr. Speaker, that's just the point. Cargo service in the north is a lifeline for many northern communities. They are now going to have to pay considerably more for the ability to fly point to point in Canada than ever before.

The ministers went on and assured me that Transport Canada has undertaken a serious and thorough review of NAV Canada's user-charge proposal, taking into account the charging principles set out in section 35(1) of the act. The department considers international practice and used its lengthy experience in justifying fee proposals to such bodies as the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Transport Canada officials have sought legal advice on their findings. All of these measures have confirmed that the proposal is consistent with the charging principles of the act. Consequently, I have no option but to approve the proposal and, this being the case, I wrote to NAV Canada on September 5, 1997 to grant approval of its revised user charges, which will come into effect on March 1, 1998. That being said, the current round of consultation has served to highlight to NAV Canada issues of importance to its client. I understand that the corporation is open to more extensive discussion as it prepares for the second set of fee proposal schedules for implementation on November 1, 1998.

The consultations are expected to begin as early as December 1997. I would encourage you to make your views known to NAV Canada officials over the next few months, so that cooperatively a set of fee proposals can be designed which will be sensitive to the concerns of the north while, at the same time, respecting the charging principles.

So, we've been given a window of opportunity, Mr. Speaker. We've been given a window of opportunity to provide input into the second set of increases in user fees proposed by NAV Canada.

We can go on at great lengths, Mr. Speaker, but what we are looking for in the north is to maintain a reliable, financially viable mode of transportation in the air. We have a scheduled carrier now that has proven itself over time to be able to provide that service. The cost to you and me, the end user, Mr. Speaker, has been growing, and under this change imposed on us by the federal government, the cost of a ticket for you, for me, and for any member of our family, or to ship any goods, is going to rise disproportionately in the north than they will in the southern parts of Canada.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all members of the House to support this motion, which will serve to benefit northerners and those we attract here for business or for pleasure. I would urge the support of all members of this House on this motion, as I can see benefits accruing to us if we are unified in our approach to NAV Canada in presenting an approach that clearly identifies our reliance on NAV Canada for a multitude of services here in the north, and cannot be replaced, in a number of cases, by any other means of transportation.

So, it's a win-win situation if all members of the House join with me and support this motion.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion, as presented by the member opposite, the Member for Klondike.

There are not many times in my life that I would tend to agree with the member opposite, but certainly, for the most part, at this time I do agree and endorse what the member opposite has been saying in his talk.

I will not take much time, for certainly the member who spoke before me has certainly spoken about the history and the implications of what it means. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that yes, it affects all life, all industries here in the Yukon, certainly not only just the Yukon, but certainly everywhere north of 60.

In my home community, and many communities - eight communities - there are CARS sites. They're funded by the corporation; they're administered by the Yukon government. There, whether it's for exploration, for going out and enjoying the privilege of flying, they come in just so very handy, not just to maintain the status quo, Mr. Speaker, but certainly to go forth and to bring new revenue and economic growth into the territory.

I want to say that, although the air traffic dollars in the Yukon are not sufficient to generate the revenues necessary to support the most basic safe level of service, the federal government has made a commitment, through Bill C-20, to maintain the existing services in the north and the isolated locations without cost premiums. The cost of this commitment will be funded by Canada and by user fees.

Our government has indicated that it supports the principles of improved efficiency and long-term savings that commercialization of the ANS will bring, and that the Yukon government is monitoring the actions of NAV Canada closely to ensure that service levels are maintained and that a safe and efficient transportation system in the Yukon is not jeopardized.

As the member previously has spoken, NAV Canada is currently undergoing a national review of the air navigation system it provides. Part of this review is a system-wide analysis of the northern remote areas, rather than a site-by-site evaluation. How that works is that NAV Canada has proposed that the review, commonly known as the north of 60 study, will be driven in part by an aeronautical study team comprised of members of NAV Canada and the territorial governments.

The study team will identify and define the Air Transport Commission, the FFS, and the community aerodrome radio station service and hours of operation of each site retained or established, identify the need for additional training at busier CARS sites and recommend the number and location of remote communication outlets.

The current service levels of the ANS in the Yukon were protected when Bill C-20, the commercialization of the civil air navigation service, was passed in 1966. But, certainly there was an opening, and if the corporation proposes to terminate or reduce the Yukon-designated northern services, implementation is only possible if the territorial government or users have not rejected it or, as in this case, the Minister of Transport approves the proposal. So, we've been given and taken.

The aircraft and control personnel provided very positive aircraft separation within five miles of the airport, aircraft clearances and limited weather information.

The towers are generally established when aircraft movements exceed 60,000 a year. Aside from the weather briefings and the advisory service and the past clearances, et cetera, the 1996 Whitehorse aircraft movements totaled 42,545 movements in 1996. Now, this does not include the 6,000 movements at Schwatka Lake during the summer period.

Just on that note, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should have a better understanding of the Schwatka Lake and the proximity that it has to the Whitehorse airport. Therein certainly lies a danger, when you have two different locations, a float plane operation and a wheel-based operation. That must be taken into consideration.

One moment please.

Mr. Speaker, it is said and it is true, as the previous member has said, that there is going to be a window of opportunity and I encourage all users and certainly everyone who is concerned about this predicament to bring forth their thoughts to this round of consultation. In a letter that I sent to the hon. David Collenette, I expressed very grave concerns, one of which was that the consultation process was certainly inadequate. In Mr. Collenette's reply, he said that he understands that the corporation is open to more extensive discussions as it prepares for the second set of fee proposals scheduled for implementation on November 1, 1998. These consultations are expected to begin as early as December 1997.

So, I certainly encourage people and users to bring forth their concerns.

I've also brought forth a concern that aviation safety should not be and could not be compromised, Mr. Speaker. I do believe, as I've just said a few moments earlier, that there is a possibility that air safety could be compromised, and again I encourage all people that are part of this dynamic that they should be making presentations.

Without repeating what the previous member has already said, Mr. Speaker, I will not reiterate many of the comments because, as I've said, certainly, on this issue, for the most part, I certainly can and do agree with the member. Again, I reiterate that we should be taking advantage of the window of opportunity and to clearly let our views be known.

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly support the motion, but I think there's one consideration that should be thought of and should be considered within this motion, and I would encourage, after I speak about it for a few moments, that all members would agree with the motion.

And, Mr. Speaker, that is of the people that are affected by this - the labour force, the actual people that are there and have hands-on knowledge.

The flight service station employs a total of 14 people. The air traffic control employs seven persons. One person is acting as the general manager.

We've got to consider this and take this into consideration. There was a public meeting on December 4 here in Whitehorse. During that public meeting, NAV Canada suggested that it is likely that the study will confirm that either the tower or the FSS will close - one or the other, based on the movements. So, Mr. Speaker, not only are we going to be cutting back on a health and safety aspect and maybe, in part, restricting the economic growth of this territory, but we are going to be laying off people who are valuable and very much a part of the Yukon.

With that, I would propose a friendly amendment to the motion.

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Keenan: I move

THAT Motion No. 70 be amended by deleting the second paragraph and replacing it with the following paragraphs:

"THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

1) NAV Canada may be seeking to reduce national staffing levels and services;

2) NAV Canada may be planning to close the Whitehorse air traffic control tower (ATC) and have all service provided by flight information services (FSS); and

3) staffing reductions and closure of the air traffic control services (ATC) would result in overall reduction of services to Yukon consumers;

and

THAT this House urges NAV Canada to reconsider its proposal to replace the air transportation tax with user fees, and strongly objects to Canada's Minister of Transport approving NAV Canada reduction of staffing levels and services."

Thank you very much.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services

THAT Motion No. 70 be amended by deleting the second paragraph and replacing it with the following paragraphs:

"THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

1) NAV Canada may be seeking to reduce national staffing levels and services;

2) NAV Canada may be planning to close the Whitehorse Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATC) and have all service provided by flight information services (FFS); and

3) staffing reductions and closure of the Air Traffic Control Services (ATC) would result in overall reduction of services to Yukon consumers; and

THAT this House urges NAV Canada to reconsider its proposal to replace the air transportation tax with user fees, and strongly objects to Canada's Minister of Transport approving NAV Canada reduction of staffing levels and services."

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I do believe that this is a friendly amendment, and that it will incorporate our thoughts on this side of the House and build upon the thoughts that the member opposite has certainly spoken to in his preamble.

We do not want to see a reduction in national staffing levels as they may be doing it. I do believe that the information and services that are provided by the flight information service are very, very much an integral part of the territorial government makeup, and certainly, as I've spoken before, the staffing reductions and the closure of the ATC would result in an overall reduction of services to Yukon consumers.

I do believe that speaks to the continued building of the Yukon economy, and certainly to keeping the people employed as they would be employed for this very, very serious situation that we find ourselves in.

Those are my comments.

Mrs. Edelman: Well, Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, the Liberal caucus, of course, always has concerns when jobs disappear from the Yukon. That means a lot of money that comes into our economy. Quite often people move out of the Yukon and that tax base and those people who add to our community in every sense of the word go with them.

My concern with the amendment, however, is that there is a study that's going on right now and it is examining whether or not there is going to be a change in service levels to Yukoners and whether or not there is going to be any actual benefit to keeping both services open. So, I think that we may be jumping the gun just a bit here, and we always have to be aware of the fact that there's only one taxpayer.

On the other hand, it's always wise to keep Yukoners working. So for that reason, the Liberal caucus would support the motion as written.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I support most of the motion. I guess I share some of the concerns that the Liberal member has just mentioned, and that is that the part of the motion that's says, "strongly objects to Canada's Minister of Transport approving NAV Canada reduction of staffing levels and services."

I'm not sure whether that's been done yet. My understanding is that they've been discussing it and there's a report that's coming forward. I know that there is a debate itself that is going on between people in Whitehorse who are involved in both services on whether or not both services are completely needed in this territory. I mean, what I would be concerned about as a legislator is, of course, the jobs.

The jobs are very important, but when you look at the numbers that I've seen, there are a lot of airports in southern Canada with far more takeoffs and landings than Whitehorse has, far more traffic than Whitehorse has, that haven't had both flight services in the tower for many years and operate quite efficiently.

We're probably one of the more expensive airports, compared to the number of landings and takeoffs that we operate. We're probably one of the most expensive ones, because of the number of takeoffs and landings.

So, I guess what I'm concerned about is, first of all, that safety is paramount - that we make sure we protect safety. Then, as the Liberal member said, there is only one taxpayer. Years ago, I think we had quite a bit more traffic than we had in Whitehorse. We had several airlines landing here. There were quite a few more landings and takeoffs, and I think that, at that time, both were warranted.

We shouldn't be too hasty here before we've even seen the report and the final recommendations of NAV Canada. I think that the debate is still going on, and that what we should be doing is addressing the issue of the staffing when we know what they're going to do. To strongly object to it now and not have all the figures and numbers in front of me, and not have all the safety issues addressed in a fair way, is maybe not the approach to take. I appeal to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, who put that in front of us, to maybe look at an amendment to this; to amend it in some way so that, say, in case the report says that both services are needed, we have no reduction in staffing and level of services.

I'm just concerned that we're jumping the gun here. We hear the side opposite stand up and talk about pay-as-you-go government - a government that is going to reduce the cost of services. We know other costs are escalating. We shouldn't be making decisions about issues such as this until we have all the facts and figures before us. That's all I'm saying.

I feel a little bit reluctant to support this part of the motion, Mr. Speaker, because I don't have the facts and figures before me. I don't have the recommendation of NAV Canada, and what they say. I'd like to hear more input from the airline industry in the territory, who use the services. I'm a former pilot myself, and I've utilized the services of the tower many times. In fact, the people in the control tower literally saved my life one time, and I'm indebted to them.

My concern here is that we've got to look at delivering safe services to the general public, we've got to look at delivering it in a cost-effective way, and we've got to examine from time to time the programs we're delivering. I mean, we do this, the Minister of Health and Social Services does it - when the demand for social assistance goes down, we don't hire as many people to deliver the system; when it goes up, we hire more people to deal with the situation then. And I think that's exactly what NAV Canada is now looking at - the total cost of delivering the system based on the number of takeoffs and landings.

What I'd like to have in front of me, and I don't, is the other airports across this country in southern Canada who actually have quite a bit more traffic than we have in Whitehorse and exist with just one of the two services, and do it in a fairly safe manner, and to hear from the airline industry, the experts, the people themselves, from air radio and the tower, to see how they feel about it, before we jump the gun here and say that we reject the staffing reduction.

I don't know if that's really responsible with the information we have at this time and that's my concern, Mr. Chair. Safety is paramount but I also have to realize that things have changed over the last few years in this territory with respect to the amount of traffic. And technology has changed from the technology that we had 10 years ago.

For instance, I talked earlier about my particular episode, where the control tower saved my life and the lives of three other people who were in the aircraft with me. At that time, we didn't have the capability in the territory to pinpoint where someone was by radar or by some other communication means, and we were doing a lot of voice-level communications, where I was keeping the same tone of voice and talking on the radio and they were trying to determine whether the voice was increasing or decreasing, because there was no other way at that time to determine the direction I was from the Whitehorse Airport because a severe storm had moved into the Whitehorse area.

As a consequence of that particular incident, they upgraded their equipment. Now their equipment has been upgraded considerably more since then. Now, they are able to track those kinds of individuals through air radio and through other communication means. So, I think that a lot of changes have happened. We can't just ignore those changes. I have respect for the jobs of the people who are up there, but I think that even some of those people have seen their workload in the last few years decrease dramatically and have seen the technology increase so that it takes less time to do what they normally do.

We have to have an appreciation of the changes that have happened, from the numbers to the technology to whether we can deliver the system in a safe manner. I don't know whether the minister is hearing me or not, but I'm appealing to the minister to look at -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Phillips: No, I mean it in the way of possibly amending his motion, Mr. Speaker. I know what the minister is saying and I know what the minister wants to do. He wants to protect the level of service. He wants to make sure we're safe. But, I'm sure the minister didn't put this forward here just to see extra people in that building whom we didn't necessarily need - the service could be provided with less.

So, maybe we can look at a possible amendment to this amendment, which would accommodate the concerns the minister has about the services. It would have been interesting to hear the minister speak more about it. Maybe he knows something about NAV Canada's reduction in staffing levels. I wasn't aware that the actual decisions had been made on what was going to go yet. Maybe the minister is aware of that. I don't know whether he is or not.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Phillips: The minister said there was a meeting on December 4. I'm not aware of the results of that meeting - if there were recommendations to reduce one or the other or if there was an appreciation, maybe in the report, of the needs in the north and the more severe weather and the further distance between airports and that kind of thing.

I'd sure like to have that in front of me before I just made a decision that I support the minister's amendment that says we reject a reduction of staffing levels and services. I mean I don't want to see services reduced. I want to see the same level of service with the same safety factor built into it.

But, the question I have in my mind is whether or not this can be delivered by the people who know if it can be delivered in a safe manner. So that's the concern that I have.

So I have difficulty in supporting the amendment, primarily because we don't have the information in front of us. So I would have to ask other members to consider that. In my view, it's premature to make a blanket statement that this is how we feel about the issue when we just don't know what the recommendations are.

So, I'll leave that with you, Mr. Speaker, and tell the member that I have a great deal of difficulty in supporting the amendment, and that is the only portion I have a problem with because of the unknowns that are still out there. I believe the amendment is a bit premature.

Mr. Livingston: I rise to support the amendment.

I think that the amendment broadens the scope of the motion to ensure that we address issues of, I guess, the current personnel that are there, but I guess as the speaker opposite has mentioned, most importantly, the safety of Yukoners as they travel in and out of the territory by air. And, I think that what it does is to take essentially a proactive approach.

As I understand, the meeting on December 4 was an exercise in consultation on the part of NAV Canada to try to determine just what Yukoners thought about the proposed cutbacks.

It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is an opportunity for this Legislature to speak quite clearly on this matter.

The member opposite, the Member for Riverdale North, talked about safety and I think that safety really is at the core of this particular issue - ensuring that we have safe travel in and out of this territory and safe travel inside of this territory when people are travelling by air.

I understand that, in 1996, the Whitehorse Airport movements totalled 42,545 in and out of the airport in Whitehorse. This does not include the 6,000 movements at Schwatka Lake in the summer period. Of course, one of the features that is somewhat unique in Whitehorse is that the amount of air traffic will vary considerably by season and I think that seasonal difference is one of the factors that we think should be considered when we take a look at what level of service needs to be provided here in order to ensure safety, in order to provide adequate information, adequate information for flight planning and for the air traffic that converges on the airport at various times.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge members to take another look at the amendment. I think that it's in the spirit of the original motion and it does urge us to take a position while NAV Canada in fact is doing its consultation. One would assume that, because it's doing its consultation, it still has not reached a final decision. We have to remember that the position NAV Canada is going to come out with at the end of the day is going to be in the interest of NAV Canada. It's certainly going to be within its mandate, but it's also going to be addressing its corporate interests. With the decline in subsidies that will occur over the next, I believe it is, 14 months from the federal government, it is certainly having to work hard on that bottom line. I respect the need for services to be provided in a cost-efficient kind of a manner, but I would underline that some things, lives lost, for example, through air accidents - and I note in Monday's paper there was reference to one where they felt they had lost some air services, air traffic control services. This was in Quebec and they had nothing. That's right.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Livingston: No, but it was interesting because it was after a deliberation. The member opposite says it was that the service in Quebec did not exist and that's true when this accident occurred, but it moved from a position where they had something to where the recommendation was made that they could do without and they did.

They eliminated the service, and the result was, apparently, an accident, and the conjecture is that, in fact, it was because of the absence of that service. So I urge members to support the amendment.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak regarding the amendment.

The difficulty that we have in discussing this amendment is, as my colleague from Riverdale South has noted, we're always concerned when there's a loss of jobs within our territory. There are too few Yukoners at work as it is, and too few jobs as it is. Now, in particular, with our high rate of unemployment, further loss of jobs is of tremendous concern.

The difficulty that we have with this amendment is that there are too few facts on the table. There is not enough information being presented to members to have a reasonable and thoughtful discussion. We're being told that flight services provides service to Whitehorse airport outside of regular business hours, in any event, and that, particularly on point 3, the Member for Riverdale North has said that point 3 in this amendment is redundant, and it isn't necessarily true.

The concern that we have and the point I wish to have on the record is that perhaps a friendly amendment to this amendment should be given thoughtful consideration by members, in order that all facts might be considered on the table when we're discussing this motion.

Mr. Ostashek: I want to speak to this amendment. As the member before me from Riverdale North said he could speak from experience, I believe that I also qualify to speak from experience on this amendment, having flown and utilized the services of both air radio and the control tower for a period of some 20 years.

I appreciate that none of us really like change. I think that's a human trait. We get set in our ways. We think that things can continue the way they are forever, and we are very reluctant to accept change. We also always look for the downside of change - well, Mr. Speaker, maybe I shouldn't say always, but more times than we look at the positive aspects of change.

Now, I know that in a small jurisdiction like the Yukon, we can't see very much that is positive when we have jobs reduced. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, as taxpayers, we all have great difficulty with the high level of taxes that we pay, and whether we like it or whether we don't like it, the two are interrelated.

We want governments to act in a responsible manner, and I think that's the message that's been given to all levels of government, especially over the last four or five years when we almost hit the financial wall and governments had to start looking at doing things differently and had to streamline their services.

While I, for one, believe that we ought not lose NAV Canada completely from the Yukon, as a person of the flying public who utilized those services for many, many years, I have great difficulty in saying that I believe that both air radio and flight tower services are required at an airport the size of Whitehorse. It just does not make sense from a safety point of view or any other point of view outside of protecting jobs that are here in the community now. I don't believe that we would be impacting the safety level one iota if the services were streamlined.

I wouldn't be able to say that, Mr. Speaker, if I felt it was going to compromise safety in any manner.

We, over the years, have been very, very fortunate in the north but we have been looked after in a very grandiose manner by the federal government. There is a multitude of federal dollars that have come to the Yukon. There's no doubt that a lot of it was required. An infrastructure was set up here that required a lot of dollars to maintain, and it went on until there were no more dollars to maintain it, Mr. Speaker, and we, in this Legislature, can be very critical of the federal government at times, and I can probably be one of their worst critics when necessary, but I also believe that we need to be able to look at changes with an open mind and not just look at the negative aspects of them. We also must maintain safe air operations in the Yukon. We don't want to see that compromised.

Now, I understand that there is a planning process going on right now in Whitehorse as to what level of staffing, if any, should be maintained in Whitehorse. I don't believe that I'm prepared to make a decision at this point that all of the staff needs to remain at the Whitehorse Airport in order to have a safe operation. I think that's being very narrow-minded and very narrow-focused.

I am just as concerned as other members in this Legislature about the loss of those positions from the economy of the territory. But, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to ask our federal government or any level of government to be more responsible in how they spend taxpayers' dollars, then we have to look at what can be cut without compromising the level of service that we're enjoying.

When the hon. Member for Teslin proposed his amendment about the jobs, I never heard him expand that this was going to compromise safety if these jobs didn't remain. I think that should be the foremost consideration in our minds when we talk about the level of service that we're asking any level of government, or any organization, to provide to us. Is the cut in the number of personnel that are going to be employed at that facility going to compromise the safety of air traffic in the Yukon? That should be our first consideration. If it does, if any of the members opposite can get on their feet this afternoon and provide me with some evidence that they believe the safety of people who are travelling in aircraft or utilizing those services is going to be compromised, I may be able to have more support for the amendment. Right now, I can't, because I haven't heard that.

I believe the motion that was put forward by the hon. Member for Klondike covered off what is the concern of all of us in the north, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the proposed user fee changes to the navigation service in Canada will add cost to air service. That's the basis of his motion. We don't want to see the cutbacks of NAV Canada or the increased cost having a negative impact on our services. We don't want to see the safety of the travelling public compromised.

The amendment, Mr. Speaker, goes on and asks for the deletion of the second paragraph, and the second paragraph states that this House urges NAV Canada to reconsider its proposal to replace air transportation tax with user fees so northern Canadians will not have to bear additional costs than what is currently being charged for navigation services.

The hon. Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes wants to omit that paragraph. In speaking to the amendment, he never gave any rationale why he wanted to delete that paragraph.

Does he believe that NAV Canada should be putting in place user fees? Is that what he believes? Is that why he wants that clause removed from the motion?

The intent of the motion, as I understand from the Member for Klondike, was that we are against imposing user fees on users of the system in northern Canada because those additional fees, if they are in excess of what's being charged in the south for air navigation services, will have a detrimental impact on our economy.

Now, the amendment, Mr. Speaker, says that it is the opinion of this House that NAV Canada may be seeking to reduce national staffing levels and service. Well, certainly they are. Let's call a spade a spade; certainly they are. They've got to address the cost of providing a service that the federal government was providing at great expense to the taxpayers, could no longer afford to provide and they need to find a way to do it better. Quite rightly, they are seeking to reduce national staffing levels where acceptable and where it will not compromise the safety of aircraft.

I believe we in this House should be supportive of that. We should not be criticizing that. And, point 2 of his amendment says that NAV Canada may be planning to close the Whitehorse air traffic control tower and have all of the service provided by flight information services.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that that's an appropriate examination that they ought to be making. I have thought that for many, many years. I've flown into many airports in the north and I can talk about what I used to consider my home airport, Burwash Landing. Back in the 1970s, we had seven and eight people staffing that facility. Why? Because it was a process that was put in place by the federal government at a time when navigation aides were not as good. Air radio communication was not as good. Weather information was not as good as it is today, and those people were required then. But, as time went on, as with any other - especially a government organization and, until we run into a cash crunch, we don't examine in detail what we are doing, we don't look to make changes until we hit a financial crisis and then, when change is forced upon us and we have to make that change without having the leisure of the nice, lengthy time frame to be able to absorb that change.

So, I don't have any difficulty at all with NAV Canada looking at the possibility of combining air traffic control services and flight services. I don't have any difficulty with that at all, as long as it doesn't compromise the safety of the travelling public. I say again, Mr. Speaker, for the record, the members opposite, in their support of this amendment, have not given me any evidence of that whatsoever. I think if we're going to have an intelligent debate on this, other than just a wish that we don't want to see jobs lost, which is the same feeling that members on this side of the House have - we don't want to see jobs lost either, but we have to face the reality of the technological world that we're living in today.

I guess my question would be to the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes: does he believe that we ought maintain those jobs even if they're not necessary to provide safety to the travelling public? If that is his position, he ought to say so on the floor of this House and we'll know what we're arguing about and what we're debating about, because that certainly is not my philosophy nor the philosophy of my colleagues in the Yukon Party caucus. We believe that jobs need to be maintained if they're required to provide the service.

Clause 3 says, "Staffing reductions and the closure of air traffic control services would result in an overall reduction of services to Yukon consumers." Well again, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any evidence from the members who have spoken so far to this amendment and especially from the government side from where the amendment was proposed that that would, in fact, be the case that Yukon communities would have an overall reduction in services.

I don't know what justification the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes made for that clause 3 of that amendment that "staffing reductions and the closure of air traffic control services (ATC) would result in an overall reduction of services to Yukon consumers." I don't know what evidence he has for that.

Then he goes on in the amendment, Mr. Chair, to say that the House urges NAV Canada to reconsider its proposal to replace the air transportation tax and user fees, and strongly objects to Canada's Minister of Transport approving NAV Canada reducing the staffing levels.

Well, again, Mr. Chair, we can agree with part of that. That's part of what was in the original motion and it need not have been deleted, when in fact it was stated in the motion. I don't know what merit there is in deleting a clause in the motion and then reinstating it basically in very similar language if in fact the members opposite are in agreement with the Member for Klondike that we ought not to be implementing user fees.

So, Mr. Chair, for the reasons that I've laid out, I just cannot support the amendment. My staff right now are drafting a friendly amendment to this that I would like the members opposite to consider, and I hope it arrives here shortly, before I run out of time to speak. Members opposite may not want to get up on their feet and may want to rush a vote on this.

But, Mr. Chair, I think that this motion was a very worthwhile motion to put on the floor of this Legislature, and I would like to see a motion that all members in this House can support. I don't think that this kind of a motion ought to be a motion of one-upmanship - "We don't like your wording; we'll put our wording in. We don't like the wording you put in; we'll put our wording in." I would just like the members opposite, if they want my support to this amendment, to get up and give me some rationale as to why I should support it. They haven't done that.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, the Member for Whitehorse Centre says I have to sit down. Is he indicating to me that he's going to speak to the amendment? I may sit down if he does.

Mr. Speaker, I will take the Member for Whitehorse Centre at his word that he's going to speak to the amendment, because I really want to see a motion passed on the floor of this House this afternoon that satisfies all of our caucuses and will not be one that we have to vote against different amendments on just for partisan political reasons. We ought to be able to come up with a motion here that deals with the issue and, Mr. Speaker, the issue that I feel is before this House is a reduction of services to air traffic in the Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons I cannot support this amendment and, at some point, we will be proposing a friendly amendment.

Mr. Hardy: I hope the member's friendly amendment gets here pretty soon. Crack the whip a little bit there.

I don't think we, on this side of the House, are trying to do a one-upmanship or any of that kind of stuff. We are trying to flesh out a motion that we do support in general and that would also reflect some of our concerns as well. Hopefully the friendly amendment will come and will satisfy everybody in the House.

The Member for Porter Creek North mentioned a few issues and wanted some proof. Well, there's not much proof before the fact, but any time you do reduce services, of course, it's going to have an effect upon the services that you supply to a business or a person. Often what happens when you're dealing with very, very dangerous situations - changing weather conditions has already been mentioned by people on the other side as well as on this side - you don't want to play around too much with it. You want to make sure that, if there are going to be any changes made, everything is covered before the changes are made.

But I do have a few things here, and some of it is actually from the meeting that was held. NAV Canada's flight service station employs 14 people. Seven are employed in the air traffic control tower and one person is currently employed as a general manager for three air traffic control services in Whitehorse.

The changes that could happen can be a reduction in having people there who respond to needs where you have to have another person on the end of the line - not a machine, not an answering service and not a printout. You actually have to have someone to talk to and to assist you through your difficulties. I don't have the experience that the member opposite from Porter Creek North has in flying in the Yukon, even though, when I was 16 years old, I did take flight lessons and did do some elementary flying in the Yukon as a young person. I definitely don't have the long background, but I do know many pilots, and I do know the conditions in the north, as I have flown with many of the pilots up north.,

I will read some of the comments from the public meeting, because I think they're reflective of what people feel out there: "NAV Canada suggested that it is likely that the study will confirm that either the tower or FSS will close. One concept that's been proposed is to retain the tower and convert the FSS into a flight information centre," which they abbreviate as FIC. "FICs would theoretically group a number of flight service stations into one and provide services over a broad regional area, rather than a small, local area."

I think right there is a small alarm bell, especially with the changes with the weather station that we've just undergone, as well as keeping track of very quick weather changes and the conditions that may arise in some of these mountain passes or over lakes, especially - we haven't talked about float planes very much, but that's a big concern up here, because many people fly using the lakes and float planes.

An FIC for the north, in Whitehorse or Yellowknife, has been discussed over the past few years, but has not been developed beyond the concept stage. The Yukon program will also be reviewed - our CARS program - as part of the study. NAV Canada officials indicate that they are pleased with the Yukon program, and do not foresee any major changes in the distribution of that level of service.

Some of the comments there - users attending the Whitehorse meeting complained about poor communication access - calls not answered, calls placed on hold for long periods of time to Whitehorse flight services. Persons representing Yukon commercial operators complained that the FSS has not been able to respond quickly enough to their flight planning needs. Private discussions with one large Yukon operator indicate that there may be growing support to retain tower services, but have the Whitehorse FSS replaced by a CARS system.

It goes on, "Closure of the Whitehorse tower could be viewed by major air carriers as a significant reduction in service at the Whitehorse Airport. It possibly could be argued that the tower closure might detract major carriers, especially foreign carriers, from using the airport."

So not only do I feel that there's potential for safety problems - and they are being expressed by the industry - but there's also the potential of the negative impact it'll have on trying to attract some major carriers into the north, and that'll definitely have an impact on revenue, tourism and the businesses around.

As well, a pilot is listening to the debate, and I got this scratched note out, listing some of their concerns. There is sufficient traffic during busy periods to warrant air traffic control, especially when we factor in float plane traffic on water. Now, the tower, I believe, services Schwatka Lake, and that's a concern, as well. It's not just one airport, but there are small airports around the Yukon, plus Schwatka Lake, that we have to consider. We can't just be thinking about a major airport, which maybe can be covered that way, but we're talking about a lot of small airports.

This person goes on, "I'm a beginning pilot and value the air traffic control service. I've been cleared to land and, at the last moment, directed to another runway because of a sudden shift in the wind. How do you put a price tag on a flight service that can provide that direction." That's really service because a person is there, able to give you that direction. I wonder, with the reductions that may happen, and I think will happen, any time you get a change like this, will that kind of service be there? I don't think there's a person anywhere that wants to see a flight accident happen.

Users say that if something has to go, it should probably be the tower. Now, that's if something has to go, you know, like, maybe the tower should go, but they'd much rather keep it, of course. They do know how valuable it's been in the past. They know how valuable it's going to be in the future, and it's a concern.

Cost recovery for that service is impossible, given the small user base. That's an ongoing debate that I think we'll have once we get out of this amendment.

That's about all I have to say - just some comments that were passed to me from the meeting as well as from people listening, and also my own general observations that any time you start to reduce personnel, even with technological changes, you are going to have an impact on service. This is one area where I would be very, very hesitant to say that it's not going to have an impact, because I believe that an accident in this area often means death. It's not a car accident.

Mr. Cable: This amendment better get here in a hurry.

Mr. Chair, I think this amendment might demonstrate the need for SCREP to look at the rules for amending motions. What we have in front of us is, "that it is the opinion of this House that, number one, NAV Canada may be seeking to reduce national staffing levels in services." Let me tell the minister that whatever the opinion of this House, that is not changing the fact. That's like saying, "It's the opinion of this House that the Clerk may be considering going down to McDonald's for supper." It's not going to change the fact that the Clerk is thinking or may not be thinking of going to McDonald's for supper.

It's also the opinion of this House that NAV Canada may be planning to close the Whitehorse air traffic control tower. They may or may not be, but whatever the opinion of this House, it's not going to change the fact of what NAV Canada is doing.

We can support this, because it means virtually nothing, I suppose, but what does possibly mean something is the part of the motion that says, "it is the opinion of this House that staff reductions and closure of the air traffic control services would result in an overall reduction of services to Yukon consumers."

Now, what we have in the House today is a group of people, some of whom have flown aircraft, such as the leader of the official opposition, who is telling us that he's unsure that there will be any safety problems, on one side, and we have the minister, who is putting out some innuendo suggesting that there will be a reduction of services. Assumedly, the minister in charge of the airport has reached this conclusion.

So, here we are, some neophytes in the air traffic control business, being asked to choose between the two positions being put forward. We have the spectres being raised by the minister, some might-bes and some could-bes and would-bes, and we have some facts put forward by the leader of the official opposition. Where we find ourselves in the Liberal caucus, not being familiar with the air traffic control generally, or for that matter, the moving of aircraft around the country, we find ourselves having to judge the opinion, which I think is that of the minister. He hasn't stated categorically that staffing reductions and closure of the air traffic control services would pose a problem. All he's doing is sort of raising some spectres and innuendo and hopefully when he gets up to conclude the debate on the amendment, he will state to the House assertively whatever the set of facts are, in his view, and whatever the set of facts are that the minister's officers have told him.

Now we've heard also that there's a study underway, presumably by some people who are in the know, dealing with these very issues that were raised by the minister dealing with the issue of staffing reductions and closure of the air traffic control services and dealing with the alleged fact that these reductions and closures would result in overall reduction to services to Yukon consumers, and, assumedly, in the same vein, that there would be an increase in safety problems with these staffing reductions enclosures.

Now we don't know that. We haven't seen the studies. The leader of the official opposition suggests, and perhaps with good reason, that the minister's jumping the gun on this.

Then we have the last paragraph, that this House urges NAV Canada to reconsider its proposal to replace air transportation taxes with user fees and strongly objects to Canada's Minister of Transport approving the NAV Canada reduction of staffing levels and services.

Now from what I've heard, this decision has not as yet been made. Perhaps the minister, when he gets up to speak next, could confirm that.

I must say that I found the speech by the mover of the motion really quite interesting. I was unfamiliar with the NAV Canada setup and had only a very general idea of what NAV Canada was all about so, Mr. Speaker, it was quite useful to hear the history of NAV Canada and to hear that it was set up as a non-profit making organization.

It was also useful to hear the debate to date, as it relates to the amendment of course, that we have here in the Yukon a situation, unlike the more populated parts of Canada, where air transport is the only practical way of travelling in and out of the Yukon, particularly if one has some time constraints on their hands, Mr. Speaker.

At times, during the year, there is little competition in air travel and there is a little downward pressure on travel costs, so any user fees will only exacerbate a problem that few other Canadians experience to the extent we do.

Now, this is particularly relevant to the tourism business - one of the three lifelines of our economy - so it would be very useful to find out whether these staffing reductions and closure of the air traffic control services that are being mooted around would, in fact, result in an overall reduction of services to Yukon consumers, as in the amendment. It also would be useful to find out whether that sort of rationale, that same sort of reasoning, would apply to the people that come here as part of our tourism business.

I've got the better part of 20 minutes still to go, so, I'm going to torture my colleagues as they have tortured me on these various Wednesdays.

NAV Canada contemplates three sets of charges. One of the charges, Mr. Speaker, relates to terminal charges; another set of charges relates to over-flights, and the third set of charges relates to oceanic charges, which would affect our tourism business.

Now, all of these will relate back to what takes place up at the Whitehorse Airport, which is primarily the main entry point - not the only entry point, I should say to the Member for Klondike, but the main entry point - for many tourists from out of the Yukon.

So, what I would beseech the Minister of Community and Transportation Services to do, is get up and unequivocally say that, in his opinion, and based on some research, not based on some bar talk, or based on some telephone calls he's had - well, the minister is saying he is a visionary. Perhaps he can conjure up a vision that could satisfy this side of the House that the staffing reductions and the closing of the air traffic control service would result in overall reduction of services to Yukon consumers. Perhaps he, at his persuasive best - I know sometimes he is very persuasive - could in fact persuade us there will be an effect on safety if there are staffing reductions and closures.

Mr. Jenkins: What we have before the House today is a motion. That motion deals with replacing a tax with a user fee and a set of user fees associated with aircraft movements, aircraft landings and takeoffs in Canada.

The user fee and fees, when they're implemented, will place an added and disproportionate cost on northerners when they utilize air transport and air cargo services north of 60, Mr. Speaker. But we somewhat got off the topic and into the area of staffing levels and all of these other issues associated with the provision of these services, and it's of concern to me, Mr. Speaker, that those discussing this topic are not fully aware of the changes in technology that have driven the changes that have occurred in the provision of air navigation services in Canada and, indeed, in the world, Mr. Speaker.

One only has to spend some time flying around the State of Alaska in the general aviation business. There used to be towers at virtually every airport. There used to be several centres to control instrument flights in Alaska. That's all boiled down to just a few towers today that are staffed on a basis that addresses the level of traffic.

So, when the traffic is low, they are not staffed. They are remoted out of another principal centre. Anchorage centre is the main hub. You can fly into Eagle, Alaska, which is a port of entry into the U.S. When you raise that airport on the radio, you are, by and large, talking to an individual based in Northway, Alaska.

When Northway is closed, you're talking with someone that is in Anchorage. It is very, very interesting to see the improvements that technology has made in the provision of these services. Whether we like them or not, they're coming upon us and they're coming upon us in order to maintain costs at an acceptable level and, as a consequence, these changes in technology usually result, or sometimes result, Mr. Speaker, in a reduction in staffing levels at many of the facilities.

The issue of public safety always comes before us at these times, and the issue of public safety has to be addressed and recognized, because that's one area where we do not want to see any reduction whatsoever - the level of public safety. The changes in technology that we see, Mr. Speaker, have a corresponding reduction in staffing levels and, after the bumps are usually ironed out of the transition period, there is not normally a reduction in public safety. There have been some issues with automatic weather stations that have not proven to be as reliable as they should be, especially when looking for the ceiling or the bottom of the level of clouds. The human eye is much, much better at it than the modern technology or the automatic weather systems. There are some other bumps in the automatic reporting systems that, I'm sure, over time, will be ironed out but, more and more in Canada, we're leaning toward these advances in technology.

So, while I can appreciate where the Minister of Community and Transportation Services was taking us in his amendment to the motion dealing with staffing levels, it's the intent of this motion to deal with the main issue. The main issue is the replacement of a tax with a user fee that will place a disproportionate cost of the provision of these services on northerners.

Subamendment proposed

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 70, and it reads:

THAT the amendment to Motion No. 70 be amended by deleting all of the words after subclause 2 in the amendment and by adding the following words:

"THAT this House urges NAV Canada to reconsider its proposal to replace the air transportation tax with user fees and ensure the highest possible level of public safety and the provision of equivalent levels of service."

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Klondike

THAT the amendment to Motion No. 70 be amended by deleting all of the words after subclause 2 in the amendment and by adding the following words:

"THAT this House urges NAV Canada to reconsider its proposal to replace the air transportation tax with user fees and ensure the highest possible level of public safety and the provision of equivalent levels of service."

Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the amendment, a very friendly one for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services to accept, doesn't alter the first two issues that we have in the minister's amendment, but it does serve to clarify the main motion and address the issue of safety and service, and it does serve to address and continue with the thrust of the main motion, which, Mr. Speaker, is we have to recognize the federal government is eliminating a tax and replacing that tax with a user fee, and that that user fee will place a disproportionate cost on those of us in the north who utilize air for their personal transportation or for the movement of goods.

I would urge all members of the House to support the intent of the original motion, as amended and further amended. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, to tell you the truth I can't support the amendment to the amendment because it certainly does not speak to the staffing reduction and closure of the air traffic control services, which would result in overall reduction of services to Yukon consumers. So, if they cannot speak to the people and to the workers, well then, I don't see where it is good.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am very, very disappointed in the approach that the Minister of Community and Transportation Services has taken. Basically, what he's trying to do is convert a motion that is going to talk about air transportation tax into a jobs motion. I guess the problem I have with that is that if the minister wanted to discuss the issue of jobs, the minister had every right in the world in this session to bring in a motion to discuss that. But, the minister has tabled an amendment to a motion which talks about jobs, Mr. Speaker, and the minister hasn't provided one shred of evidence to support his motion. In fact, the minister's told us that the decision hasn't even been finally made yet on who might be changing, or what might be changing.

I would have thought that if the minister was going to pursue the jobs issue as paramount to his amendment, he would have done his homework and provided some information. It appears that the minister has come ill-prepared and bootlegged a jobs issue on to an issue that is going to affect all Yukoners, and that is replacing the air transportation tax with user fees, and costing all of us more to fly in and out of the territory.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the amendment, in my view, does deal with the issue of safety that I know the Member for Whitehorse Centre brought up and others have raised in this House. It also deals with equivalent levels of service. To just bring the job amendment forward and deal with it strictly as a jobs issue ignores all kinds of things. It ignores the levels of traffic we're experiencing in the last few years; it ignores the technological changes that we've had in the last few years; it ignores almost every question that's out there right now that is unanswered, other than the fact that this may involve some Yukoners' jobs.

Like the leader of the opposition said, it would be sad. I mean, any job loss in the Yukon is unfortunate, but I'm equally surprised at the side opposite standing up in the House talking about running a mean, lean machine and an efficient government and proposing a motion to maintain levels where they are now, when there's actually a report that's going to be coming out discussing the needs for those levels, in light of changes in the past few years.

It seems to me like the cart is a mile and a half in front of the horse here. It's not an appropriate time for us to be making that decision, whether or not those particular jobs are the issue. In fact, the motion was put on the floor today to deal with an area that is totally separate from that. It is to deal, primarily, with the cost of air service and the delivery of air service to Yukoners in the future. And so, I am going to support the amendment to the amendment because I believe that it covers the issue that the Member for Whitehorse Centre, the Member for Riverdale South, the Member for Porter Creek North and the Member for Riverside have all addressed. So, it provides us with the latitude to speak out loud and clear.

If NAV Canada decides that it wants to reduce either the control tower or air radio and the facts and figures don't support their decision, we can all, at that time, scream and holler and join the protest with others and lead the way, in fact, if we wish. Mr. Chair, it appears that the Minister of Community and Transportation Services came into the debate not as well-informed as he should have been with respect to the issues. He certainly came into the debate, tabling an amendment, but provided no facts to back up his amendment. You can't come in here and say there should be no reduction of jobs on account of safety and services and then not produce one shred of evidence. That is going to be dramatically affected, when we're waiting, as we speak, for recommendations to be given publicly.

I think that the member is trying to change the intent of the motion somewhat to accomplish, probably, a political means. He certainly is not looking at it in the context of whether it will affect public safety or will affect the equivalent levels of service in the future. For that reason, Mr. Chair, I have to disagree with the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, who should have come to this House and been up to speed on this issue, and obviously wasn't.

That is kind of disappointing, because this motion has been on the Order Paper for a considerable length of time. That minister had all kinds of time for him and his officials to get briefed on all the details and all the facts and to produce the facts here, and he was going to come forward with an amendment to produce his rationale for the amendment, and he hasn't done any of that. He hasn't done any of that here today. He has just stood on his feet, and in a very short, probably three-minute, speech, said, "It's all about jobs and that's what it's all about and we're voting against the amendment."

But some of his other colleagues have stood up and said that it's not all about jobs. It's all about the provision of equivalent levels of service and public safety, and we brought forth this friendly amendment, which I believe addresses the issue and still allows us all the latitude to speak out loud and clear if we're not happy with the recommendations that NAV Canada comes down with.

So, Mr. Chair, I would urge all members in the House to give serious consideration to the amendment to the amendment and support it, because I think it does exactly what we want to do and allows us the latitude that we need to address the issue.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Chair, the member opposite just talked a long time, unlike the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. However, the member opposite didn't say very much in that lengthy dissertation.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we can't support the amendment, as opposed to the proposition we put forward, is because it implicitly eliminates the concern for the loss of employment related to this complex issue. This is a complex issue that involves, obviously, more than the jobs. It involves service levels, public safety, and it involves the issue of the user fees. But to eliminate that particular issue after we put it forward, I think, would be cutting loose some Yukoners and Yukon employment that I think is an important considerations.

Now, I'm not surprised that the members opposite aren't concerned about that. Heaven forbid, Mr. Speaker, that the Yukon New Democrats are concerned about jobs in this territory. Well, we don't make any bones about that. We've seen too many federal cutbacks in health care and education and staffing levels to not be concerned about jobs in this territory and levels of service. And, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we're going to make any apologies for that.

So, Mr. Speaker, to cut loose the concern for jobs in this amendment to the amendment, I think, is wrong, and for that reason we implicitly cannot support this subamendment. The intent of it in terms of service levels is fine. However, we're not prepared to move away from the position that we've put on the table that does have concerns about national staffing levels and service.

So, what they are essentially doing with their subamendment to our amendment is asking us, as a party in government, to cut people loose in this territory and across this country, and we're not prepared to do that. Therefore, we have difficulty with the subamendment, even though the general intent of the highest possible levels of service and the concern we have about user fees are common ground on this subject.

So, for those reasons, we can't support the subamendment.

We are very prepared for this debate. We always have been prepared for this debate, and for that reason we put forward an amendment to the original motion that we felt would be more comprehensive and deal with all of the aspects and all the concerns that have been iterated and reiterated on the floor of the Legislature this afternoon.

So, we don't intend to the cut the people loose whose jobs are affected here, in either of the branches of this issue, whether you're talking about the FSS or if you're talking about air traffic control or if you're talking about this territory or across this country. I think there is a fundamental problem here and the approach has been taken by NAV Canada, and it is more comprehensive than just the jobs issue. That's not all we're concerned about. We're concerned about the original intent of the motion that was put forward by the Member for Klondike.

We felt we'd put forward a friendly amendment that was supportable by the members opposite, and we don't make any apologies for being concerned about further job losses relating directly or indirectly to decisions taken by the federal government, so we will not be able to support the subamendment to the amendment, unfortunately, and we are disappointed that the Yukon Party chooses to ignore the issue of staffing levels and jobs. We believe it should have been incorporated into the whole debate, as we look at public safety, service levels and user fees.

So, unfortunately, we won't be able to support the subamendment.

Mrs. Edelman: It's really interesting to hear the different points of view in the House. Sometimes, you wonder if you're talking about the same thing and, certainly, today people are extremely confused.

The first thing is that the amendment to the amendment brings us back to the original issue, and the original issue is not the federal government cutting positions, because it's NAV Canada cutting positions. That's one of the areas where people are quite confused.

The issue of user fees as opposed to a tax on passenger tickets is the central issue, and that does affect us as Yukoners quite considerably.

Yukoners already pay high passenger ticket prices and high air freight fees. Now, if NAV Canada is going to streamline air navigation services in Canada, then that's a good thing, but this initiative should not cause Yukoners to pay even more than we already do in air freight and passenger services.

Now, before November 1, 1996, air navigation services were provided by Transport Canada and funded mainly through the air transportation tax, or ATT, charged to airline passengers. It's important to note that NAV Canada, a not-for-profit private sector company, now provides these services and will receive a diminishing portion of its funding from government over a two-year transition period. That ends in November 1998 and at that point, the air transportation taxes are to be repealed as set in the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act.

It's expected that the new charges in increased oceanic and over-flight fees will total approximately $578 million during the first year and will recover 60 percent of NAV Canada's total cost. Transition payments from government will provide the remaining 40 percent.

Now, on November 1, 1998, the charges will recover 100 percent of the cost, and at that point, NAV Canada will operate independent of government funding.

NAV Canada, the country's national provider of civil air navigation services, is a non-share capital corporation with operations coast to coast, providing air traffic control, flight information, weather briefings, airport advisory services and electronic aids to navigation. That's important for us to know because not everybody in this House is a pilot.

The authority for the commercialization of air navigation services provided by the Minister of Transport include these key components: the transfer of air navigation services assets under the management control of the Ministry of Transport to NAV Canada, a corporation incorporated in part 2 of the Canada Corporation Act; the transfer of employees to NAV Canada with equivalent working conditions and benefits; and the continuation of current collective agreements and the granting of successive rates to bargaining agents - this speaks very much to the first amendment - t

he granting of certain powers to