Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, March 9, 1998 - 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 with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

TRIBUTES

In remembrance of Danny Coles

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Danny Coles, who passed away suddenly on February 20, 1998, at the tender age of 22.

Danny was of northern Tutchone descent and a member of the Wolf clan of the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation. Daniel Coles was born on September 29, 1975 in Whitehorse to Sarah Johnny and Roger Coles. He attended Tantalus School in Carmacks and later moved to Drayton Valley, Alberta, where he graduated from Frank Maddock High in 1994.

Soon after returning to the Yukon in 1995, Danny became close to his mother, grandparents and other family members, spending time at his grandparents' fish camp and learning his northern Tutchone language and culture. Danny was mild mannered, gentle and understanding of others' opinions. He was always smiling, helpful to others and had a positive attitude toward life. He loved floor hockey, curling, roller hockey and ice hockey and baseball, and was always surrounded by young people.

He was also artistically talented and he won several logo competitions in the community. Danny was open to learning and became very interested in self-government. He was particularly concerned about the environment and planned his future education in the environmental field this fall.

He was also planning to put his name forward in the upcoming council position.

Danny touched the hearts of everyone he knew. He demonstrated great leadership skills and was a symbol of hope to the youth in the community.

His death shocked family, friends and the community, many of whom are still struggling with the tragic loss and have yet to come to grips with his sudden passing.

Danny will be sadly missed by his family, grandparents, girlfriend, friends and the community. They will also have fond memories of his smiling face and gentle ways, and are so much richer in having known him.

Mr. Cable: I want to say that it's difficult to understand how a young man could be in good health one week and then be taken by a fatal disease the next week. His parents and family members and friends are left to wonder about the why of Danny's death.

As the minister had just mentioned, Danny was 22, and he was born in Whitehorse to Sarah and Roger Coles. He spent about half of his life in and around Carmacks and about half in Drayton Valley and on a farm near Drayton Valley.

He received the first few years of his education at Tantulus School in Carmacks and then graduated from Drayton Valley High School.

At the time of his death, I understand he was working in the assay lab at BYG mine, at Carmacks. He was a very personable young gentleman and had a wide circle of friends in both the Drayton Valley and Carmacks areas.

He will be missed by his family and his many friends, and his girlfriend.

Speaker: Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is my distinct pleasure to draw members' attention to the gallery to some very fortunate Yukoners who will be celebrating French culture and heritage for a couple of weeks in Paris, France. These ambassadors will be meeting some very distinguished government dignitaries besides drinking in a little bit of Parisian springtime.

In the gallery are Yannick Bédard, Phillipe Sormany-Albert, Dominique Sormany-Albert, Marie-Josée Guzman, Médéric Boucher, Yann Herry, Sylvie Baril.

And bidding adieu to them and a

lso in the gallery is the principal of l'École Émilie Tremblay, Mme Hélèn Saint-Onge.

Please join me in congratulating them and wishing them good fortune.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling the Yukon Public Service Staff Relations Board's and Yukon Teachers Staff Relations Board's annual reports.

Mr. Livingston: I have a legislative return in response to an oral question asked on February 26 by the Member for Porter Creek South.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr. Fentie: I rise today to give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House recognizes that

(a) fire safety around the Yukon communities is a significant concern, and

(b) there are opportunities to lessen the fire risk around communities while creating jobs and accessing fibre for Yukon's forest industry;

THAT it is the opinion of this House that a community fire safety program could reduce the fire risk around our communities and create jobs by helping to address the allocation needs of the forest industry; and

THAT the federal, Yukon, First Nation and municipal governments should work together to achieve these goals.

Speaker: Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Shipyards residents, relocation

Mr. Jenkins: My question is for the Government Leader and it's on the issue of the Shipyards expropriations on the Whitehorse waterfront.

Mr. Speaker, in the NDP book of promises, A Better Way, it states how the government treats its citizens and how it consults with people about decisions that affect them are as important as the subjects being discussed.

The residents of the Shipyards and Sleepy Hollow area discovered first hand that this commitment is but another broken plank on the NDP's ever-growing scrap heap of broken promises. The fact is that this so-called "caring government" didn't even talk to the Shipyards residents in advance. The residents were told through the media that they were being evicted.

Can the Government Leader explain to the House why his government didn't consult with the Shipyards residents prior to them being told in media reports that they were being evicted, and why they still haven't been consulted? They're just starting a consultation process, Mr. Speaker. Will the Government Leader now come clean and tell the House the truth for once?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, the member won't be surprised if I disagree with his assessment about not only the government's position on this particular issue but also his assessment of the government's record in keeping promises.

First of all, it would be incorrect to say that the government, and I, particularly, did not have discussions with Shipyards residents over a long period of time. In fact, I have been discussing with them, and have raised their issues in this Legislature, on numerous occasions over the last four years, as I'm sure the member will now be informed by his colleagues.

With respect to the process for discussing the future of the Shipyards, the member will be aware that the budget speech announces the government's plans to do things; it doesn't necessarily involve having come to conclusions already by the time the budget speech is delivered. So, the government's plans in the budget itself are to hold discussions with each individual person in the Shipyards to determine how best their needs can be accommodated, all the while knowing and ensuring that when the city undertakes planning for the waterfront, the people issues there will be addressed prior to any development taking place.

Speaker's statement

Speaker: Before proceeding, the Speaker would like to remind the Member for Klondike that saying another member isn't telling the truth is out of order.

Please continue.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, recently, a letter bearing the signature of the Government Leader has been hand-delivered to the residents in this area. This is after the fact.

Can the Government Leader explain his comments to the media that his government didn't want a situation where he was leaving only a sliver of time to deal with residents' issues in relation to land claims and the Whitehorse waterfront development plan? Is this the excuse for the residents not being advised in advance that they were going to be evicted?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can forgive the member for not knowing anything about the issue before coming into the Legislature and asking questions. But let me tell the member that the letter that I sent to all of the residents last week merely confirmed the many discussions that we've had together - they and I, together - over the last four years, where there was very real concern expressed by the people that when it came time to develop the waterfront, their issues would be given short shrift. My commitment to them was that I wouldn't let that happen.

Now, what is happening here, of course, is that there is no obvious development plan for the waterfront, but there is time to talk to the residents about their issues and to ensure that their needs are cared for before any steamroller comes along to develop the waterfront and before the weight of public opinion can work against the residents. What the government is in fact doing is ensuring that their issues are addressed in good time, without any deadline, so that their situation can be handled with dignity.

Mr. Jenkins: So, Mr. Speaker, it's the Government Leader that used the term "sliver of time." Can the Government Leader advise the House what he means by a sliver of time? Just how imminent is the destruction of the shipyard residents' homes? When is this very caring NDP group of bulldozers at the hands of this very sensitive and civilized Government Leader going to mow these houses down? When is that going to occur in that sliver of time, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the member is misinterpreting the letter, clearly. What we wanted to avoid is dealing with their issues in a very short period of time. We wanted to deal with the people issues when we have time, and the member may know or may not know that I, in opposition, was trying to encourage his colleague, the now leader of the official opposition, for four solid years to start addressing the issues facing the people in the Shipyards-Sleepy Hollow area, recognizing a fact that the people there would be the first to admit - at some point - the Shipyards-Sleepy Hollow area will be reserved for all people of Whitehorse.

Now the Member for Riverdale North suggests that the government gave them an eviction notice in the paper - far from the truth. Far from the truth. The discussions that have been going on between the MLA and the residents there have dealt with this matter at some length, and they know it. If the member wants to check the newsletters from the MLA for McIntyre Takhini, they will see as well that the issue has been raised often.

So before the member starts making allegations about this government wanting to evict the people, and doing so in a very short period of time, well, check the record and ensure that they understand the issue before they ask the question.

Question re: Shipyards residents, relocation

Mr. Jenkins: Well, let's just go back a little bit. After the Government Leader tabled the recent budget, it was obvious that the NDP's ability at math is not the greatest and that the Government Leader hasn't really learned anything from his previous experience in government. In fact, the Government Leader has never admitted, to this day, the previous NDP's government left a $64-million deficit in the last year that they were in office, even though his own personal signature is on the public accounts record verifying the deficit. We are heading in that same direction again. So much for truth and honesty in government.

Could I ask the Government Leader to explain how he arrived at the figure of $294,000 for the Shipyards expropriation? In media reports he has stated his government multiplied the number of residents by an arbitrary sum to come up with the figure. Could the minister provide an explanation of this "arbitrary sum"?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That ranks as one of the most convoluted preambles to a question that I've heard in a long time, bearing absolutely no relation to the issue at hand and carrying mucho, mucho mistaken facts in the delivery.

Mr. Speaker, let's go back even a little bit further. The member wants to talk about the rationale for this particular initiative.

Sometime ago, people were talking about planning and developing the waterfront. Even during the period that the Yukon Party was in office, they made statements, claims, promises about developing the waterfront. At no time was there any reference made to what was going to happen to the people who actually lived there.

The people issues were raised in this Legislature not by anybody in the past, during the Yukon Party government, not by anybody in the government, but by the MLA for the area. The commitment very clearly on the record was that those people issues would be addressed first.

Now, as the member may recall, even in the paper about a month ago, there were planning meetings advertised for people to go and plan the waterfront. Again, no recognition, no acknowledgement of the fact that there are people living there.

So the rationale for wanting to deal with people issues before something comes along is self-evident. If you want to deal with people with some dignity, take some care, take sometime, and you put their issues on the agenda, you would announce - when you were intending to raise those issues formally with people - that at some point formally; the government would announce this initiative. Beyond just simply the MLA for the area having discussions with people, there would be real discussions with key individuals and the government about their future prospects.

When it came time to providing the notion of compensation, it was clear, Mr. Speaker, that this was a different situation than that which existed with the squatter policy.

Speaker: Would the member please conclude his answer.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I'll continue answering the question when the member asks another question.

Mr. Jenkins: I thank the Speaker for bringing the Government Leader to the point because there was certainly no answer to the question "an arbitrary sum," and this is a caring, socialist calculator that arrives at this arbitrary sum. And the Government Leader went so far as to state that this arbitrary amount of money set aside for the relocation should be sufficient.

Could the Government Leader please explain "arbitrary" and "sufficient" to the residents of this area that he's going to expropriate?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all the Yukon Party's record was to do nothing, to set aside no funds, and yet to plan the waterfront. That was the Yukon Party's prescription to this entire issue.

"Sufficient" refers to sufficient to meet needs and to ensure that the personal situation of the people there is properly addressed. Because, as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the old squatter policy was to find a way to ensure that people could stay in their homes.

This is a situation that is more akin to the escarpment relocation, where people are being encouraged to leave their homes, because of the so-called greater public good of wanting to have the waterfront available as a treasure to all people of Whitehorse and the Yukon. That's the purpose and that's how people have been talking about planning it.

The "arbitrary sum" in advance of discussions is simply a statement saying that we are going to put some public funds forward to try to meet real needs. We haven't focused on precisely what each individual need is, but when we have taken the time, doing it right, talking to people individually, we will be in a better position to know what precisely is required in order to meet the public objective of ensuring that the people's individual needs are met, but also to ensure that the waterfront is made available to all people of Whitehorse and the Yukon.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, for the Government Leader's information, a planning process mainly deals with people in this instance and that's the process that the Yukon Party was involved in, a planning process dealing with the people in that area as well as focusing on the -

Speaker: Order please. Stop your heckling, please.

Mr. Jenkins: On the question I raised on February 26 in this House, the Government Leader's colleague, the Minister of Community and Transportation Services advised - he usually spends most of his time at 30,000 feet and is still climbing whether he's in an airplane or not - that the $294,000 relocation fund was just a start of the process. The Government Leader is saying, "Well, that's going to be enough."

Can the Government Leader advise the House, what's right, what's wrong and at what figure the process will end at? Will he be consulting with the Shipyards residents about the figures prior to the bulldozers knocking on their front doors?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Party's initiative, with respect to the waterfront, didn't even treat people as an afterthought, let alone as a primary concern. That's pure revisionism on the member's part; it has nothing to do with reality. Pleading in this Legislature to deal with the people issues at some point fell on deaf ears with the Yukon Party ministers. The record speaks for itself.

I don't know if the nasty comments the member made about the Minister of Tourism were relevant or not - probably not. The whole point of the discussions with individuals on the waterfront is precisely to work out individual needs and to address those needs appropriately. That's the point of the discussions. The fact that there is a fairly sizeable commitment of public funds behind the process is recognition that the government is prepared to start the talking and to do it appropriately and mean business when they do the talking. That is the substantial difference between what this government is prepared to do and what the Yukon Party did.

Question re: FAS/FAE prevention

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to deal with a problem, particularly a health problem, when we don't know how large or small the problem is. The Asante study of 1981, which was almost 20 years ago, shows that the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome in the Yukon was 47 babies in every 1,000 births. In Canada in 1994, it is estimated that one or two children of every 1,000 live births is considered to have FAS or FAE. If those 1981 figures are still accurate, that means that the incidence of FAS in the Yukon is 47 times the national average. If this was any other health problem, we would consider this an epidemic.

Mr. Speaker, what is this government doing to help prevent FAS in the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, we're doing a considerable amount, not the least of which is working with Skookum Jim's to try and act on some of the preventable natures of it. As well, we work with Education through our Teen Parent Centre and a variety of other responses.

But it does lead me to an interesting discussion. We have, lately, been looking at some opportunities from other jurisdictions about some early intervention models. I've had a presentation very recently on those, and I'm hoping to bring forward a more detailed program in this regard very shortly.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, that's very interesting.

Now, with FAS, what goes around, comes around. According to the B.C. Prevention Resource Centre, if a woman has one child with FAS, the chance of her having another FAS child is 406 times more likely.

Mr. Speaker, FAS is the most commonly known cause of mental retardation, and it is preventable. In the Yukon there are already four highly effective FAS prenatal intervention programs operating on federal dollars only, and that would be at Skookum Jim, at the Teen Parent Centre in Whitehorse, out of the Dawson shelter, and out of Fort Liard and Watson Lake. Now, these CAP-C funds run out in the year 2000, and this NDP government said that they were putting issues around alcohol on their top priority list. That was back in December of 1997.

Will this government commit to preventing the epidemically high number of FAS births in the Yukon by funding and supporting these prenatal intervention programs?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid the member is somewhat mistaken. We do support FAS prevention. One of the things that we have been working with has been with Skookum Jim, which he just made reference to. As well, we do support the Teen Parent Centre.

We've created a comprehensive community-based FAS/FAE prevention plan. We have established a working group. We have been developing the kit, "Alcohol and the Unborn Baby." ADS has been providing the T-ACE and TWEAK FAS/FAE screening tools - training to physicians and nurses - and we recently had one in Dawson City, and consultations have been held with the FAS/FAE advisory committee regarding the development of programs for referring pregnant women who are drinking.

I would suggest that the members' allegations that we're not doing anything is somewhat misdirected.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I hope that that support comes in the form of money when the federal money runs out in the year 2000.

Now, in the April 1995 alcohol and drug strategy implementation plan, there was a priority put on giving assistance with safe accommodation during pregnancy for high-risk mothers. Perhaps the minister can share some good news with us here. The FASSY - an FAS grass-roots volunteer advocacy group - has been trying to arrange this much-needed service through a local hotel. Now, what support has this government given this much-needed prevention service? Perhaps the minister could illuminate us on some funding that came out recently?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, first of all, the member was - and I would have to echo her diatribe there against the federal government. As a matter of fact, perhaps she could join, along with Mr. Rock, in condemning his Cabinet colleagues for their rather paltry contributions toward health, and I would certainly support her in that.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: And decline it, thank you.

With regard to the idea of providing some protection, we are hoping that, with the advent of the transient shelter, one of the things we're hoping to do is provide some emergency shelter for individuals who are going through particular points of crisis, and it would be one of our goals, to try and provide that kind of support.

Question re: NovaLIS contract

Ms. Duncan: My questions today are for the Minister of Government Services. In November last year, the minister and I had several vigorous discussions in this House regarding the contract of about $450,000 to a Nova Scotia firm - NovaLIS - for GIS technology for the Yukon. After some of these vigorous discussions, the minister provided me with the contracts issued to date to NovaLIS. The last of these contracts, which was the largest, coincidentally, for $340,438, was to be completed on February 27.

Would the minister indicate if this project has been completed to the satisfaction of all parties? Is the system NovaLIS was asked to put in place complete?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: To the best of my knowledge, the most recent advice that I had on this was that it is.

Ms. Duncan: Perhaps the minister could indicate, when he's next on his feet, if it was completed at the agreed-upon price or if there were change orders.

On November 24, the Minister of Government Services committed that the balance of work on this system for the government - it's about $400,000 worth of work - would be tendered. The minister also said, and I quote, "It would be tendered in such a way as to give local companies the best opportunity."

The minister also indicated that he assumed these contracts would be tendered at the beginning of the fiscal year. Can the minister be more precise today? When does he anticipate the tenders for the balance of the GIS work?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I'll have to get back to the member with that, but with regard to her assertions there, I've given direction to my department that they should be doing followup work with the folks involved in GIS and in information technology in general. We sent a letter in that regard, and I've asked our department to follow up to make contact with those folks.

Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised at the minister's answer because he made that same commitment on November 24 last year. He said that he had committed to working with industry to develop a system in such a way that there would be maximum opportunities for local companies.

Now, the minister has said today he's given instructions to his department to work with the GIS industry. Would he come back to the House and table that letter? Why did it take three months to write?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, the letter did not take three months to write. As a matter of fact, the letter was sent earlier. What we've been waiting for is a response from the industry in that regard, and I directed the department that they should follow that up when we were waiting for a response. Since it wasn't forthcoming, I asked that our director of information services give a direct call.

Question re: School busing contract

Mr. Phillips: A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, I met with the local bus drivers for the local school bus company, Diversified Transport, to discuss busing issues and specifications within the current school busing contract, one that has yet to be awarded. I think the closing date is March 24.

During the meeting, a number of issues were raised. A particular concern was expressed by the drivers about safety standards and, more particularly, about the monitoring of compliance to ensure adequate levels of safety are maintained in any new contracts that are issued.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister how the government intends to conduct inspections with respect to the enforcement of the bus maintenance and safety conditions and, in fact, since some of the contracts have gone out to rural Yukon and have gone to independent owners rather than one major contractor, are we increasing our inspection frequency, and who does that, and how often are they going to be checking on the new operators to make sure that the safety conditions of the contract are all being met?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: First of all, I have to correct a couple of points in the member's preamble. The communities have always been tendered as separate contracts to encourage rural Yukon to be able to bid on providing bus services in their communities. This year a number of community-based transportation companies were awarded contracts in rural Yukon.

As well, we have put a number of requirements in the specifications in the tender to ensure that safety issues are adequately monitored in the busing contracts, both for the rural communities and for Whitehorse.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I've read the recent contract that came out from Whitehorse, and I think it's good that there are safety conditions in there.

My question to the minister was how are they going to monitor this, because it appears that, before, it was more self-monitored. In the case of Diversified, the company that had the contract, they were doing most of their training and monitoring themselves and now the government, having put it in the contract, may be required to monitor it.

So, I'd like to ask the minister: how is the minister going to monitor these new conditions or these conditions that have been put in the contract with respect to safety?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: There are a number of checks in place in order to ensure that safety standards are met. There is a two times the daily rate penalty clause for non-performance of duty in the contract. The bus certification checks by mechanics have been increased to two per year to ensure that the school buses are safe. Spot checks of buses can be done, and we can engage personnel employed by Community and Transportation Services to help Education with that. As well, the requirement for driver training remains in effect.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I don't think the minister really answered my question with respect to the new conditions she's put in. Somebody's going to have to make sure that it's done. The penalty is no good, Mr. Speaker, if no one is checking whether in fact the mechanical inspections, and other things, are carried out.

During the meeting I had with the drivers, it was also brought to my attention that there was a requirement to have a performance bond to be eligible to bid on the rural school bus contract, and that was removed just a few days before the closure of the tender - in fact, so soon before the closure of the tender, I've heard, that some people didn't realize that it had been removed and didn't bid the contract.

I'd like to know who made the request to remove the security bond from the people bidding on the contract, and what security do we have now to ensure compliance with the contract, if we have no bond?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The busing implementation committee, which was struck to respond to the Matrix report on school busing, recommended that the bond criteria be removed from the Whitehorse tender. In order to be consistent with the urban tender, the department decided to remove the criteria for performance bonds from the rural tender as well, in order to encourage local bidders, Mr. Speaker.

The issue of removing the performance bond was also supported by the busing committees in place, and I'm very happy that many rural contractors were able to bid on and receive busing contracts to supply the service in their communities.

Question re: Shipyards residents, relocation

Mr. Cable: I have some follow-up questions on the Shipyards negotiations. The minister talked about negotiated purchases. Could he tell us who's driving the negotiation train? Is it the City of Whitehorse or the Government of Yukon?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Government of Yukon, Mr. Speaker, is committed to speaking with the Whitehorse waterfront residents about their issues and their needs. Most of the residents live on Commissioner's lands. Only a few, I believe - or at least there are a few buildings - are on what are now City of Whitehorse lands.

Mr. Cable: I was listening to a talk-in show on the radio and one of the Shipyards residents was giving the impression that he wasn't about to move. "Good luck to the government. "

What is the government's position with the use of its expropriation power, if, in fact, some of these people don't want to leave?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, as the member knows, unless the resident has their interests covered through land claims negotiations, the residents are not living on land they own. Consequently, the government will have to assess its options if a reasonable discussion and negotiation cannot produce results. At this point, I think it would be counter-productive to talk about bottom lines before the discussions have even started.

Mr. Cable: Well, I think it's productive to the members on this side of the House to determine how far the government's going to go. It has the power under the Yukon Lands Act to move on the people living down there. Is this one of the options it would be prepared to use if, in fact, these people decide that they want to stay?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, like members in the opposition, for someone who would want to see the government looking tough and sounding as if it was going to be quite brutal, then one would want to talk about bottom lines right now, so I can understand precisely where the member is coming from. Unfortunately, I can't agree that that is the appropriate option. I think that the discussions with residents should take place first.

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

INTRODUCTION OF VISITOR

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, if I could just interrupt for a minute, I notice that we have a former MLA, David Millar from the Klondike, who has joined us in the gallery. Please help me welcome him.

Applause

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the members' wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: Fifteen minutes.

Recess

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

Bill No. 9 - First Appropriation Act, 1998-99 - continued

Office of the Ombudsman - continued

Chair: Committee is dealing with the estimates. We are on general debate of vote 23, office of the ombudsman. Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Cable: When we concluded on Thursday, I was busy asking the Government Leader some questions on what should and should not be in the public domain, and one of the issues we were discussing was whether, in the generic sense, there was money provided by the government to a proponent outside of a program, for something such as the money that's gone to Faro on various occasions. The documents are usually made public and I believe he was going to think about whether that, as a general proposition, is acceptable to him.

Could he indicate whether he's had any further thoughts on the matter?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I haven't had a chance to advance my thinking on the subject since last Thursday afternoon, but I do appreciate the basic point the member is making and I agree with the notion that there should be a clearer sense of what should be public and private within departments.

The member asked me whether or not I share the view with him that the Access to Information Act should be a shield, as opposed to - I'm not sure I want to say "sword" but the analogy is appropriate - whether or not it was supposed to protect public servants from releasing information or whether it was supposed to be a tool which people use to extract people's legitimate right to information about their government. I think he and I agreed on the general intention of that legislation.

Clearly, the commitments that we've made in our own action plan, or our own commitments in the last election, are a reflection of a needed desire to review what is public and what is private and hopefully we get some independent view of information currently held by government and do some analysis of what can be made public and what should be routinely made public when people ask for it, so that we don't have to go through all the hurdles associated with the Access to Information Act in every case.

So, the member and I agree on that basic objective and in our mandate we have every intention of living up to the objective of reviewing public and private information.

Mr. Cable: I had referred to the federal information commissioner's report during the debate the other day and I'd like to refer the minister to the 1996-97 report. The federal information commissioner, over the course of a couple of years, made various comments on the Department of National Defence's handling of the information relating to the Somalia inquiry. Some of the information was solicited under the inquiry itself and some was solicited under the federal access to information legislation.

He has made quite a scathing report of the Department of National Defence's actions. I'm not going to read very much of this, but I would like to read some of the bullet points he makes in analyzing that particular series of events.

He said, "Canadians were given a sad lesson in what public officials are capable of doing to undermine the public's right to know." One of the bullet points was: "Giving access requests the narrowest possible interpretation so that by slavish adherence to the letter of the law, the spirit of the law was violated."

Another comment was, "Ignoring response deadlines to suit the convenience of senior officials, to facilitate lengthy sign-off processes and to enable media response lines to be developed."

Another one, and the last one I would like to read - and there were quite a few of them, actually - he said, "Following a philosophy in censoring responses to access requests which states, 'When in doubt about the likely consequences from disclosure, keep it secret,' a philosophy specifically rejected by the federal court."

I know the minister has said that A Better Way had given him a warm glow, so this report, too, if he'd like to take it to bed with him some night, I'm sure would give him another warm glow.

I would like to refer him to the chapter entitled, "Tips," where the commissioner is looking over the various reasons for delays and he poses the general question, "What causes delays in the first place? The principal reasons are these ..." and he outlined six of them. The last one is, "... insufficient knowledge of and training in the requirements of the Access to Information Act."

Let me suggest to him that his party's platform, where they talk about doing just that, is to be commended. Let me commend to the minister that his government move ahead with the training of public officials in knowledge of the act and in the giving of responses, treating the act as a sword for people who want information, rather than a shield for the government.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, Mr. Chair. Again, I agree with the member's basic assertion that the act should be used as a vehicle to ensure that information is made public and not a device to frustrate people or shield public servants unnecessarily.

I do know that using the access to information legislation and the process outlined in that legislation is often used to frustrate people. Information that should be and could be routinely delivered is only delivered after people go through this long, convoluted process. The process itself is designed, clearly, for those hard-to-measure areas, where some thoughtful consideration is given to private and public interests and that balancing act. What often happens, though, is that if some people want anything at all, they have to go through that process, and I don't believe that that was the intention of the legislation. The legislation itself was to outline a process that was meant to handle the tough requests.

There is a concern about what should be routine information, and I don't mean by that just information that is routinely requested and given, but routine information meaning the standard bureaucratic information that should be delivered because there are no sensitive policy issues or no Cabinet secrecy or no private disclosure involved - those things that might cause complications in an access-to-information request. What I've discovered - and this is a long-outstanding concern over many, many years of associating with government departments in one way or another - is that often, departments and department personnel do not know what is routine. Particularly when politicians ask for information, they clam up, and that's not the way it should be. If we had a clearer definition of what's public and what's private - or, let's put it this way, what's routine public information that should be given, and what other class of information should be run through the access-to-info mill - that would help matters an awful lot, I think, in terms of making the government more open to the people.

Hence, the commitment to do that analysis, because I think it would be a useful process for all of us, and it would also be useful as a training tool for public servants.

As I say, we are going to proceed with that commitment. I confess I have not put enough time and attention to that. I have been very preoccupied with other things, but this is an important issue. We did commit to doing it in this term, and we will do it in this term.

Mr. Cable: I don't want to belabour the point. I think the Government Leader and I are on the same wavelength. Eventually the attitude of the public service toward information requests will come to bear on the ombudsman's budget, with his information commissioner hat on, so that if in fact there is misuse of the act and an increase in the number of requests that go to him, then assumedly he will want his budget increased.

Has the Government Leader, or any of his ministers, had any conversations with the ombudsman in the setting up of the ombudsman's budget? Has he provided a forecast of files that he anticipates will be opened? Has the work load gone up in the last few months?

There was a gentleman who filled the position on an interim basis. I think everybody was anticipating a huge bulge of these requests then, later on, the bulge would disappear and they would come down to a more or less constant level of new files. Has there been any projection on new file openings, either under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act or the Ombudsman Act?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, in answer to the first question, Mr. Chair, I've had no discussions whatsoever with the ombudsman - or the incumbent in his role as privacy commissioner - personally and I have no knowledge of the pressures on his office, outside of that which I've received through the Members' Services Board.

I have not made any independent inquiries of him at all, but Members' Services Board was given some review of the operations of that office over the past year, and I think it would be fair to say that Members'Services Board came to the conclusion that we needed to have further discussions with the ombudsman about the case files, ultimately about his budget, but also about any potential changes to legislation that he may be recommending. But I have not had any - I don't know about the ministers, I don't think so - other independent inquiries into the operations of that office.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to get into this debate for awhile because I've been listening quite closely, as the Liberal critic and Government Leader have been, to the debate on access to information and what should be made available and what shouldn't and how the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act plays in.

My interpretation is that the act ought not to be used except in very rare occasions if government is being forthcoming with information. The Government Leader says he hasn't had time to deal with it yet, and I appreciate that. I would suggest to him that he does find time to deal with this in his mandate because I think it's far more frustrating - and the Government Leader ought to know because he's been on both sides of this House - when you're on the opposition benches than when you're in government when trying to deal with government departments.

I don't think the major problem is departments not being familiar with the act. I think it's just the mode of operations of governments in general, and I'm not just singling out the Yukon territorial government. I mean all governments. I'm learning more and more every day as I spend more time in this role of opposition, trying to satisfy constituents' desires by getting information from the departments.

Rather than the department saying, when you ask for information, "Well, we'll see what we can do to get that for you," the first answer seems to be no. Then, when you pursue it, they say, "Well, we have to clear it here, we have to clear it there." It seems as if they are stalling. I'm sure the member opposite knows; he was in opposition.

The bureaucracy doesn't change just because the philosophical leadership changes. They operate on their own agenda and they're set in the ways they do things. So, it needs to be quite clearly defined.

It is frustrating. I think the first approach by the department appears to be that the opposition is looking for something to embarrass the government when in 90 percent of the instances, that's simply not the case; it's just to satisfy a request by a constituent as to why something happened or why a certain program has been administered in such and such a way.

I don't believe that it's that big an interpretation as to what should be public or what should not be public information. There are things that need to be kept confidential and that's what the privacy act is all about; so those things wouldn't be released. But the majority of information is being sought by the general public and I guess that we probably seek more on behalf of the general public than the general public does itself, unless it's a very specific instance when they're looking for personal information or something like that. But just information of a general nature does get frustrating.

I guess probably why it's highlighted is, I've been two days now trying to get information on a program that should be available just by asking for it, in my opinion. Yet half the department is still checking whether it's all right to release it to me. And that's very frustrating, and it's very frustrating to my constituents who called me last week asking me to get them more information on this.

So, I think there needs to be a change of thinking in departments and I hope the Government Leader will work on that. I know he never hopes to be back on this side of the House, but he will find himself here again some day and he will be dealing with the same frustrations as he was the last time he was here. So, in the interest of all of us in this Legislature, I hope that there will be some thought given in the departments as to how they do business with the public and what really needs to be private information and what not. I think if the attitude of the departments changes just because an opposition member is seeking information, it's not necessarily always to embarrass the government.

There are times - most of the time - when we are making legitimate requests to fulfill our duties as MLAs.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I agree with the member. I guess the heart of the access to information legislation is that, even when the point of the inquiry will end up embarrassing the government, it is still legitimate, and that is what we have to make sure we aspire to.

With respect to the atmosphere in the public service, I think, from my experience, the public servants feel intimidated by even seemingly routine calls for information. I remember when I was in opposition. Sometimes constituents could get information that I couldn't get. That's a reflection of peoples' fear in terms of dealing with Yukon politicians. Even the nicest people, such as our friend from Riverside, could, I am sure, face that same dilemma.

The challenge for us now is to set up a system that makes the rules clearer, so that we don't have to face this in the future. To the extent that we can, I would like to go through the process of starting to define, in each department, what should be public and private and involve the privacy commissioner and any other wise, experienced people who know something about the field. I think that would be quite appropriate.

If it does require changes to the legislation at some point, I can commit to the members opposite that we will, in the tradition set by the previous Government Leader, negotiate changes, so that there is three-party agreement if at all possible. I think that's the preferred approach. I would commit to that, as well.

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Not seeing any, we will proceed to Office of the Ombudsman.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

On Ombudsman

Ombudsman in the amount of $166,000 agreed to

On Information and Privacy Commissioner

Information and Privacy Commissioner in the amount of $41,000 agreed to

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures in the amount of $207,000 agreed to

On Capital Expenditures

Chair: Is there general debate?

On Office Furniture, Equipment, Systems and Space

Office Furniture, Equipment, Systems and Space in the amount of $5,000 agreed to

Capital Expenditures in the amount of $5,000 agreed to

Office of the Ombudsman agreed to

Executive Council Office

Chair: Is there general debate?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have a few opening remarks, then we can get into some exchange between us. This budget forecasts increased overall spending of $1.8 million for the Executive Council Office during fiscal year 1998-99. The net budget, excluding recoverables, is $174,000 lower than the main estimates tabled last year. Branches have cut costs in order to achieve a 2.5-percent savings.

Forty-eight percent of ECO's budget flows through 100-percent recoverable programs. The increased forecasts in recoverable programming are related to a number of individual agreements with the federal government in ECO branches land claims, aboriginal languages, French languages, and the Bureau of Statistics.

The budget proposed recognizes that, while the government must continue to contain costs, priority initiatives must be supported. This budget provides the necessary funding to support key areas.

Those are the completion and implementation of land claims and self-government agreements, the transfer of federal programs to the Yukon, the work of the Cabinet commissions on Yukon forests, energy and the development assessment process, and public participation in government decision making.

With respect to land claims, Mr. Chair, this budget continues to demonstrate the government's clear commitment to concluding outstanding land claim and self-government negotiations. The proposed increase in spending of $1,036,000 was primarily to support implementation projects as committed to in the agreements already signed. It also provides the level of staffing and operating costs necessary to support negotiating groups working to complete the land claim and implementation agreements. This budget will also support the effective implementation of agreements and the building of strong, respectful government-to-government relations with Yukon First Nations.

With respect to devolution and intergovernmental relations, the government wants Yukon people to have a greater say in the future of our resources. We need to manage these resources in a way which benefits all Yukon people both now and in the future through the promotion of sustainable development. We are pursuing this goal through discussions with the federal government and First Nations on the devolution of natural resource responsibilities to the Yukon.

Leading these discussions to successful conclusion, in concert with the departments, will be the principal task of the intergovernmental relations branch in the Executive Council Office. There is $750,000 forecasted for this branch. It has only recently been fully staffed and will be able to focus its full attention on the tasks ahead, supporting devolution and strengthening relations with First Nation governments and other governments in Canada and abroad. This branch will also ensure that Yukon's interests are effectively heard and listened to on national and circumpolar issues affecting Yukon people.

The Cabinet commissions were established to focus on Yukon people's priority areas of energy policy, the development assessment process, forestry policy and Yukon hire. The Yukon hire commission has completed its work. Its report has been distributed and is available to all Yukon people. The government is currently reviewing the commission's recommendations and will be responding shortly.

The amount of $424,000 is allocated to the Cabinet commissions. This is a reduction from last year, reflecting the conclusion of the Yukon hire commission work offset by some additional resources for the conclusion of the development assessment process work that is now non-recoverable.

With respect to public communications, the last budget established a public communication services branch; this year, the Bureau of French Language Services has been combined with the public communication services to ensure coordinated communications in both languages.

Under capital expenditures, they are forecasted to decrease $554,000. The reduction reflects the conclusion of the Land Claims Secretariat's contribution to the land information management system. This is the large capital system development project headed up by Government Services. In support of the far-reaching implications for land management, the Land Claims Secretariat included funding for this project in its previous two years' implementation plans. The secretariat's contribution is now complete.

Other expenditures for capital are minimal and support the replacement of worn out or obsolete equipment.

If members would like to engage in some discussion on some general matters, we perhaps could do it now.

Mr. Ostashek: I thank the Government Leader for his overview of the Executive Council budget for this year. I'll have questions in several areas here as we proceed. I'll ask a few now and let my colleagues get into the debate as we go along.

The minister said in his overview that the net O&M budget for the Executive Council Office is $174,000 lower than the forecasted estimate. Hopefully, when he gets up to respond, he can tell us where those savings are going to be, because, when I look at the budget figures on page 2-4, I see there's some reduction in "other." I don't know what "other" stands for, but I see his personnel costs are up quite dramatically. Now, I know some of that will be recoverable. And transfer payments are up quite dramatically - well, not quite dramatically: $800,000, a 43-percent increase.

And, as the minister said, a lot of the money in his office is recoverable, and we will go through that.

I believe my colleagues asked the other day if we were going to get the ministerial travel when we got into this debate this afternoon, and I believe the Government Leader said that he would be providing us with that when we got into debate. I would appreciate getting that as soon as possible so we can have a look at it.

I want to explore some of the areas with the Cabinet commissions that the minister spoke of when he gave his overview, and the level of staffing at the Land Claims Secretariat, and what he sees as the total role of the public communications - the reorganization of the public communications branch that he has now: the reorganized public communications services program.

Also, when the minister gets up, if he could tell us if there's been any change in the organizational chart of the department. I understand that the position of ADM has not been refilled. I would like to know from the minister what is happening with that position and if it's his intention to fill it during this fiscal year or exactly what is going to happen to it.

I also would like the minister to tell me what has happened to the staff of the local hire commission. There was a deputy commissioner there. I believe he was on contract. Is the contract now over and done with? If he could just give us an overview as to what has happened to the staff.

Mr. Chair, I think that, rather than to load the minister down and try to get it all at once, we'll just take it a bit at a time and let him respond to that first.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, a few things to begin. First of all, I've just handed over the travel lists for the member's information from April 1997 to February 1998.

The member asked the question about the reduction in O&M. There are any number of ways that could be characterized, of course, as the member knows, because there are increases and decreases throughout the department. In general, one could account for the reduction and the decision not to staff a position while the incumbent is on secondment for the ADM position, and also a reduction in contract services budgets throughout the department.

When we get into each individual line item, the member will see some reductions and some increases, and I can explain them as we go. They'll be pretty self-explanatory.

The decision to combine public communications with French language services was, I think, a sensible one. Given that the responsibilities to communicate in French and English are clearly outlined in our legislation and policy, it made sense to combine the two services, even though they don't have precisely the same mandate. The translation services mainly provides translations for everything from some public communications to translating detailed government documents. The fact that the two are combined, I think, allows us some efficiencies and even some savings.

I'm hunting here for local hire commission stuff.

I have to find out where they precisely went. The person on contract, of course, is not working as part of the commission any longer, but as far as the staff are concerned, on

e applied for and became the director of public communications. I don't know where the other one went. I would have to find out.

Mr. Ostashek: That's quite all right. I should've maybe rephrased my question, but they have been dispersed, and if I hear the Government Leader right, the deputy commissioner's position, which was filled by contract - the contract is now complete. The Government Leader is indicating yes.

The Government Leader also said he's not going to refill the assistant deputy minister position. Can he give me some background as to why?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, the old assistant deputy minister, of course, was a very capable person and is now doing Finance and has now found even greater challenges in her new job, but in order to meet the reductions that were being requested of all departments, we made a decision not to fill this position at this time, or not in this fiscal year and not at least until the end of the term of the secondment. But it was only in the desire to seek some savings that that decision was made.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, for them to save $174,000, she was well-paid.

Mr. Chair, I'm very reluctant to mention people's names in this Legislature, so I'm going to try to get around it and see if I can get the Government Leader to understand what I'm talking about without me mentioning a person's name specifically.

I understand there's a person who is now in the Executive Council Office who has been seconded from the Department of Education who is doing some kind of work for the department, but the people who raised the issue with me didn't know what it was. If that person's position is in the chart, could the Government Leader point it out to me so I'd know what position it is. If he understands what I'm talking about, could he give me an explanation?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I can think of two potential candidates the member might be talking about. One is now the director of public communications who was, at one point, in - Is that the person? No. The only other one I can think of has been working on projects respecting Anvil Range and devolution. Is that the person?

I don't know if they are specifically in the chart or not, but that person is working on the so-called Anvil Range file, as well as working primarily on the technical details supporting devolution.

Mr. Ostashek: Okay, I thank the minister for that, and without having to get into the person's name, we've been able to communicate back and forth.

The concern raised with me was that this person doesn't come into work all the time and that he works out of his home. Is the complaint correct, or does this person have an office within the building? You know, what actually is his job? Could the minister, maybe after the break or tomorrow, bring forward the terms of reference of the job that this person is filling? Could he answer the question: is he working out of the building, or is he working out of his home?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I frankly don't know. I see lots of him. I always assume that he has an office someplace and he's working out of an office, but if he's working out of his home, I'll find out.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, because I don't know either, and the person that raised it with me doesn't know, so I would look forward to that.

Just staying on the organizational chart of the department, is the person who is filling the intergovernmental relations position the person that was hired last year from British Columbia? Is that the person that's filling that job?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The person, who is now the assistant deputy minister ,was hired last year and was from British Columbia most immediately. Prior to that, of course, he was the director of renewable resources at DIAND in Whitehorse.

Mr. Ostashek: So that's the one assistant deputy minister, and the other one has been eliminated, or is at least not being filled, because there were two assistant deputy ministers on the flow-chart that I have here - one at the head of Land Claims Secretariat and another one that intergovernmental relations reported to. Am I correct in assuming that one of those is a position that's not going to be filled?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I think there were three ADMs in the Executive Council Office. One was the assistant deputy minister or the chief land claims negotiator position. One was the assistant deputy minister for intergovernmental relations, and one was the assistant deputy minister responsible for administrative services and had all the five director positions reporting directly to her. Now they report to the deputy minister.

Mr. Ostashek: Okay, I'd just like to get this clear. The Government Leader said earlier in the debate that that position wasn't going to be filled for this year. It seems to me it's been eliminated from the department completely. It's off the flow-chart.

Is it the intention of the Government Leader not to refill that position next year or the year after?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Certainly, for the term of the secondment, it is the department's intention not to fill the position. That's two years, I believe. I can check for the exact term, but it will be our intention not to fill the position. I will check with the department if my information is any different from that.

Mr. Ostashek: So, then, if I read this flow-chart properly, the position that's been eliminated is the assistant deputy minister position, the chief Land Claims Secretariat, who was the deputy minister at the time when I was in there. I just find it a little odd because, on the same line as assistant deputy ministers, we have directors. Maybe the Government Leader can explain that to me. I just don't follow it.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, essentially, Mr. Chair, my understanding of the department organization now is that it has a flatter organizational structure, rather than a more pyramidical structure. The reason why the chief land claims negotiator and the ADM for intergovernmental relations are on the same line as the director is that they all report directly to the deputy minister. Instead of having three ADMs reporting directly to the deputy minister, and then the directors reporting at various levels to an ADM, they just now report directly to the deputy minister, who also is the Cabinet secretary.

Mr. Ostashek: Okay, well, I appreciate that it's a flatter line, but I guess my concern is the payscale. Is there a different payscale for the ADMs, who are reporting directly to the deputy minister, than there is for the directors, or are they all on the same payscale?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I wouldn't think so, Mr. Chair. I would suspect that the ADM payscale is higher than the director payscale.

Mr. Ostashek: I guess that causes me some concern, because it doesn't seem like the workload is any different from what the directors have, and yet we have two different payscales. I may be wrong in that, but there doesn't seem like there's that much difference in the workload, according to the flow-chart.

I'm not going to make a national issue out of it, but I would just think that that may cause some morale problems within the department.

Let me just speak a little about devolution here, and let some of my other colleagues get in.

The target date for devolution, the last we heard from this government, was April 1 of this year. When, or is there a new target date for the devolution of the DIAND programs to the Government of Yukon?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: First of all, quickly, with respect to the organization chart, it does not denote "workload". I mean, the fact that they all report to the deputy minister together does not mean they are necessarily doing the same amount of work. The chief land claims negotiator has a large organization and huge responsibilities reporting to them. For example, the director of the public communications services has only got a few people: the director for policy and maybe one or two people - I don't know, but just the very few. It's not supposed to give an indication of the size or complexity of the job.

With respect to devolution, we are intending to proceed this year. We are trying to target June for an overall agreement with the federal government on all large outstanding issues, and we're now targeting the end of this year for the formal transfer agreement to take place. If all goes well, we may be looking at the prospect of bringing forward reference legislation this fall to assume the federal regulatory regime in the event that the transfer takes place between legislative sittings.

Certainly it is proving to be a very complicated and difficult task but, as far as I am aware, the federal government is still onside and we are still proceeding.

Mr. Ostashek: I have one more question here and then I'll let my colleagues get in. The bureau of management improvement - is that position filled now? What is happening? What is the bureau of management improvement doing now and are all positions within that part of the department full?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, in general terms, the bureau of management improvement is essentially the internal audit function of the government and still performs any obligations under the service improvement program. The audit work of the internal auditor, of course, proceeds. We just recently tabled the government's audit under the Environment Act, and that has not changed.

That responsibility has not changed. To my knowledge, we did not replace the position of the person who last held the position. We did not replace that position, and the deputy internal auditor has assumed the responsibilities of the branch. We feel that that is quite manageable and, with the workplan required, we can live within those means.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, as the Government Leader knows, it's been a very difficult position to try to fill with qualified people with the auditing background. Some of the work in the past has been done by contract auditing when we get to the financial auditing of various departments.

Is that the same method that's being used in the department now? Are they contracting out the internal audit work when it comes to financial audits of various programs or departments? And would the Government Leader be prepared to table a workplan for the department?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, Mr. Chair, many of the financial audits are contracted and we will continue to perform some of the necessary work through that mechanism. The internal auditor now has a full agenda but, with the contract services, we believe we can meet the needs of the government as well as provide a useful service.

The workplan. Yes, we can table the workplan for this year and for next.

Mr. Cable: I'd like to explore what's going on with the development assessment process. The organization chart that accompanies the budget shows a line of command from the commissions up to the deputy minister and, of course, on to the Government Leader. Are there any other participants in this process that would report to any other reporting line other than the one that's shown on the organization chart? Are there people negotiating the development assessment process legislation other than those located in or reporting to the Cabinet Commission on the Development Assessment Process?

Mr. Livingston: Mr. Chair, the lead role for negotiations of the development assessment process with the other two parties - with the Council of Yukon First Nations and with the Government of Canada - resides in the commission in the position of the deputy commissioner. He has represented the government on an ongoing basis since the formation of the Cabinet commission roughly 15 months ago. We are, of course, a team of three within the Cabinet commission - three staff members including the deputy commissioner. We do work, though, on an ongoing basis with other departments.

There is an interdepartmental working group that includes virtually all departments that may, in one way or another, be affected by the implementation of the development assessment process. When I say "affected by the implementation of DAP," I'm including both as a potential proponent as well as a department that may, in some way, shape or form, be involved in decisions that the Yukon government as a decision body would take or in any regulatory matters that the Yukon government might be involved in.

So, the short answer is that it is the deputy commissioner that is representing the Yukon government at the negotiating table with the other two parties.

Mr. Cable: Just to be certain what the commissioner just said - so, there are no other lines of communication other than through the deputy minister responsible for the DAP commission and up through the Cabinet secretary and then to the Government Leader? Is that what the commissioner is saying? These interdepartmental working groups are reporting through the commission?

Mr. Livingston: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Cable: Now it's my understanding that, when the previous administration left power some 16 or 17 months ago, the DAP legislation was nearly ready to go, but that there have been some changes in approach to the development of that legislation. Am I correct in that assumption?

Mr. Livingston: No, that would not be the case and that's not the case on a couple of different fronts and I'd like to just refer initially to a couple of exchanges that took place in this House in March of 1995, and I think that this is, of course, roughly, I suppose, about 17 or so months before the end of the last government's mandate. The umbrella final agreement, of course, was signed off in 1993. I believe it was November or March. I don't recall the exact month, but the development assessment process, of course, was to proceed at that point in terms of the design and negotiation between the three parties.

March 1, though, the member, Mrs. Firth, asked the Government Leader of the day, Mr. Ostashek, about the progress that had been made on the development assessment process and its design. A number of interesting things were stated. This was on March 1. Her comment was, "My concern is the government is dragging its feet with respect to this issue. The Government Leader has indicated that land claims and the secretariat will be doing something, which indicates that they have not started doing anything yet." As the exchange unfolds, the member of the opposition indicates that she'd like to see the government take a lead role in doing something. She notes that the minister says that they're doing something, but can't tell the House what. Mr. Ostashek commented that all affected departments will have a role.

She goes on to ask the minister if there is one individual who's been given the authority to coordinate these activities, and Mr. Ostashek's reply was, "I'm certain that someone within the Land Claims Secretariat has been given responsibility. I wasn't sure who."

The indication is that there was not a very clear direction within government at that time. It was followed up only about a week later, March 9, with Mr. McDonald asking Mr. Fisher what was happening. There's some evidence that maybe some progress had been made over the course of the week because, by this point, when Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Fisher to elaborate on what his department was doing and what was happening with respect to DAP, Mr. Fisher replied that there is now a three-person team from government, headed up by the Executive Council Office, with a member from Economic Development and a member from Renewable Resources.

He also indicates later in the question that we expect that the process should start soon.

The fact of the matter is that, when we came to government, we were petitioned by a number of groups - by the mining community, by miners, by the conservation community, and so on - that they had been left out of the process, they did not have confidence about where DAP was going at that time, and they were certainly looking for, essentially, what we had talked about, and that is one process, one window, that would provide a predictable and an efficient process to examine how developments would proceed.

So there was a significant amount of work that needed to be done. One of the first things that we did, of course, was to establish the non-governmental working group to examine and ascertain what Yukon interests were, in fact, at the time. So, we sat down with the Klondike Placer Miners Association, we sat down with the Yukon Conservation Society, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce and the Yukon Association of Communities, in order to define, as best we could, what Yukon interests were and what the common ground was so that we could, in fact, proceed in a manner that would reflect Yukon interests in the design of the development assessment process.

So, there was, at that point, a significant amount of work to do. We in the commission have done the major portion of pulling together those interests into what we feel fits within the framework of the umbrella final agreement because, as far as we're concerned, it has to fit within the four corners of that agreement.

Our government intends to continue working at this until we get it right because, frankly, whether it's conservationists in the Yukon or whether it's the mining community, they have expectations about what DAP is going to look like. So, we're still at the table because we're not satisfied with some significant matters at the table at this point.

Mr. Cable: Let me approach it from a little different direction. It's my understanding, and the commissioner touched on this a moment ago, that the mining industry sure would like a one-stop shop for assessment and permitting. And it's my view that that's not what the DAP process is. It's an assessment process. Is that the view shared by the commissioner?

Mr. Livingston: What I think I hear the member opposite doing, in a sense, is mixing up the assessment and the regulatory processes. We recognize some of the inefficiencies that are occurring under the current regime, particularly for larger mining projects where they will go through CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as administered by DIAND, and only once that assessment process is completely signed off will the Water Board even entertain looking at the project and begin its assessment and then its licensing process.

Certainly one of the frustrations that exists with the mining community, and I'm looking more now at the hardrock mining community, is that this does not allow things to proceed in as timely a manner as they might otherwise proceed.

So, it's certainly our intention to design the process in such a way that all of the assessment occurs in one window and that the regulatory functions will follow from that.

Mr. Cable: I think the member and I are on the same wavelength. He's using the term "regulatory" and I'm using the words "permitting". Just so we're sure that we're on the same wavelength, is it this government's view that the UFA and the DAP process and the DAP legislation will speak solely to assessment the way it's set up right now, rather than permitting or "regulatory regime", which is the term used by the commissioner? Is that the base starting point we're working from?

Mr. Livingston: Yes, that's accurate. There need to be linkages, of course, between the two, because if they're going to work reasonably well together, there needs to be some thought given to that. In order to address the concerns of the mining community - and I would suggest of all Yukoners - it's important that, in order for us to have a predictable process, we figure out how those two processes will play with each other. If we're not going to simply be extending the assessment period and the permitting period even longer, we need to ensure that relevant questions are asked one time in the process, rather than multiple numbers of times. Certainly, that is what we're intending to do. That, I believe, reflects, as well, the spirit that's in the umbrella final agreement; that we end up with a one-stop shop or, at least, a one-window process, that developers and any intervenors are able to move through in a fairly clean kind of a fashion. That's what our intention is.

Mr. Cable: I think that, as the commissioner indicated in a previous question, the issue of one-stop shopping has come up since he was appointed the commissioner. Has there been any mandate change to reflect that desire to meld what are basically devolution issues with the development assessment process issues?

Mr. Livingston: The two matters are separate matters, of course. They do relate to each other in terms of responsibilities that government will have, because, of course, with the devolution of program responsibilities around resource management, for example, we anticipate that the management of lands and resources and the environment, as well, would tend to flow from the federal government to the Yukon government.

So, we see some change in roles that would take place along with devolution, but we don't see that the two matters are necessarily linked, at least in terms of the design of DAP and in our work to try to complete that process - the design work is what I'm referring to - and basically be able to sign that off.

Mr. Cable: Well, what I'm having some problems understanding is why there are the lengthy delays. If, in fact, we can double-track these negotiations and deal with the one-stop shop separately from the assessment process, which I assume we can do, why don't we have the DAP legislation on the table at the present time?

Mr. Livingston: Well, as I think the member is aware, given the current shakedown of responsibilities between the federal government and the Yukon Territory, the DAP legislation will be a federal piece of legislation, and we would anticipate presenting territorial legislation to this Legislature following the implementation of the federal legislation, assuming that devolution has not yet occurred at that point.

Mr. Cable: I'm not sure we're talking the same language here. It would be my guess - or my estimation anyway - from the outside looking in, or from the outside hearing in, that there is nothing wrong with getting a DAP board appointed and the legislation in place, and then sort of vesting it with powers later on.

I suppose we could have it looking after dogs if we wanted it to do that, if the appropriate funding was there. It appears, on the surface, anyway, that we're trying to put round pegs in square holes, and this is holding up the development of the legislation. What is the relationship between the commissioner's commission and the people that are working on devolution? Are they part of the working group? Do they report to the commissioner, or do they have a different reporting line?

Mr. Livingston: My responsibilities, of course, as Cabinet commissioner for DAP are for DAP and not for devolution. So certainly the people working for devolution aren't reporting to me; they're reporting to the Government Leader, who's responsible for the Executive Council Office. I can tell the member, though, that there is an ongoing working relationship between the deputy commissioner for the development assessment process and the assistant deputy minister for intergovernmental affairs, for example, who has some responsibilities around devolution and the Executive Council Office generally.

The suggestion that, somehow, we can get the Yukon development assessment board up and running prior to the framework legislation, or the legislation that provides the framework for its operation, and the regulations that would guide it in its deliberations, doesn't make sense to me, I guess, because one of the messages we've had very clearly from all of the NGOs that we've operated with is that we want a pretty clear set of guidance, of direction, for the development assessment process to be functioning. We don't want something that's kind of out there, not quite sure what its particular mandate is, and so on.

So I don't foresee that we'll establish a board until we get a bit closer, at least, to knowing what that final set of legislation is going to look like. I can say, though, that there have been some initial steps taken in terms of working with the other two parties and identifying people who are working, for example, in environmental assessment with the federal government, just as - I suppose we could call it - an exercise in making sure that we're talking the same language when we're talking about assessment, and so on.

In addition, the Yukon government has taken some initial steps in a six-step implementation plan that will take us through identifying all of the areas within the Yukon government that will, in one way or another, be part of the development assessment process, in terms of identifying the kinds of roles that they will play, being informed about the process, and so on. There will inevitably be some reassignments, or realignments, within the Yukon government in dealing with assessment. I'm not sure that dogs are necessarily a part of the picture, but there are some tasks that we're beginning to take a look at.

Mr. Cable: No, I wasn't suggesting the DAP board be set up before the legislation. What I'm suggesting is that permitting and assessment are two different issues. There is a desire, I know, in the resource industry and perhaps various other places that the permitting and assessment be melded, but I don't see any reason why they can't be melded after the fact, after the DAP board is up and running, but let me leave that for a moment.

On the devolution issues - perhaps I can put this question to the Government Leader on this one-stop shopping for resource applicants. Is it the government's view that there will be a residual federal interest in interprovincial and international waters - and also in international fish - that will still require a multi-step permitting process?

Mr. Livingston: We recognize, as is outlined in chapter 12 of the umbrella final agreement that talks about DAP, that there are trans-boundary matters that CEAA and the federal government will still play a role in. There's no question about that in our minds.

But we also know that the majority of project applications we anticipate will fall within the boundaries of the Yukon.

Mr. Cable: Okay, well back to the commissioner then. Just what is going on between his commission and the devolution people who are negotiating devolution? Is that part of the mandate that there be one-stop shopping? The product that we're going to see out of this commission, is that a one-stop shopping recommendation?

Mr. Livingston: Well, I'm going to answer that in two parts, Mr. Chair. One of the ways that we intend to address the notion of one stop or one window, if you like, for developers, for example, to come to us is by running a parallel track with the assessment process and with the permitting process.

We see, for example, the opportunity to bring a technical advisory committee into play early on in the assessment process to ensure a couple of things: one, that critical questions that they want to have answered and are critical for both the assessment as well as the regulatory processes can be answered up front. One of the problems that we've observed in other jurisdictions is a situation where all of the important questions aren't asked up front and what that does is basically serve to delay the whole assessment process. It tends to stretch it out. So we want, basically, to ensure that all of the critical players are involved at the opening stages.

That's one of the ways that we want to speed up the process, bring those time lines along, and also ensure that the process is not duplicated, that we do, in fact, have one window.

The matter of trans-boundary issues is a bit more complex because we increasingly lose jurisdiction, I suppose, as a Yukon government in that process but, nevertheless, we are asserting what we feel is quite clear under the umbrella final agreement - that there be a one-window assessment process. I'm working here to not betray, I guess, the confidences of the core table in this, so I'm giving consideration as I go here to what I can appropriately be talking about. We do have some understandings on trans-boundary issues already that will ensure that we have one window rather than more than one window, and this is in areas where we share some land claims areas with other jurisdictions.

Mr. Cable: Okay. Just so we don't wander off the topic. There's a one-window assessment and then, of course, there's the one-window applications assessment plus permitting.

What is the commissioner saying? The conclusion of the development assessment process legislation - the development of it - is contingent upon the conclusion of devolution discussions, or it's not? Are there are two tracks or one track?

Mr. Livingston: The design and the completion of the development assessment process legislation is not contingent on devolution. If we have devolution, it will look somewhat different, because the Yukon government will play a greater role. If we don't have devolution, we still intend to have a development assessment process that does the job it's intended to: provide one window and be a predictable, a timely and an efficient process.

Mr. Cable: Well, okay, back to the Government Leader on devolution. It appears increasingly that there won't be early resolution of one or two of the claims. One or two of the First Nations, we think, will go beyond - what is it - the June 1998 target date that he gave the opposition leader for devolution - and perhaps even the December 1998 target date for formal transfer.

Is this government prepared to enter into and conclude the formal transfer without the conclusion of all the First Nation land claim agreements?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, we believe that we can provide comfort to those First Nations who have not yet achieved a final agreement - that their interests will not be adversely affected. Let me put it this way: we feel that we can cover off their interests even with a devolution agreement happening before their final agreements are settled. We believe the oil and gas arrangement is an example of that.

The MOUs that were signed between us in 1997 acknowledged that there can be devolution before land claims, as long as the First Nations' interests in negotiating a claim are not adversely affected. We believe we can do that. So, the answer, I suppose, is yes. We believe that there may well be a devolution before all claims are settled.

Mr. Phillips: I have some questions about land claims, while we're on that subject. There was a document that was circulated in the Carcross-Tagish-Marsh Lake area in recent weeks, from the Carcross-Tagish First Nation. I believe there was one, or maybe two, meetings that were held in the area. What it's about is a consultative process that's kind of started regarding section 24.7.0 of the umbrella final agreement, "Regional and District Structures", and 24.7.1 says a Yukon First Nation, Canada, the Yukon and Yukon municipalities may develop common administration or planning structures within a community, region or district of the Yukon, and these structures shall remain under the control of all Yukon residents within that district and include direct representation by the affected Yukon First Nations within the district.

I couldn't find anything else that explained exactly what was meant by that. So I have a few questions for the minister. I've had several calls from people in the Carcross area and Marsh Lake area who are concerned about what this means. In defence of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, they have issued a couple of notices - a concept proposal, which talks about what they would like to see, and they plan on holding future meetings. They even say that neither the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, or CAAPC - I'm not sure who that is - have gone beyond exchanging ideas and expressing a mutual interest in cooperation. Before carrying the concept any further, the CTFN and CAAPC realize the next step requires a broader dialogue about the scope of district governance with representatives from all area communities in the CTFN's traditional territory.

They talk about this including a lot of things. To highlight the combined opportunities present and stimulate discussion, the CTFN and CAAPC point to a number of possibilities and advantages of district governance, including greater opportunities and power to influence decision making at the district- rather than the municipal-type level of government, greater strength through unified purpose, goals, objectives, efforts and continuity, a common, equal voice to all communities and district residents, common administrative structure for issues of common interest, renewable and non-renewable resource management, development assessment process, economic development, lands issues, land-based planning jurisdiction, infrastructure, services, taxation, quality of life.

They want input from all residents affected at that local level, and they talk about a process. I just wonder if the Government Leader is aware of this consultation that's taking place, and my concern is, and what I've heard from the people in the area, is that they are not sure what that section 24.7.1 really means. What is the concept? What are we talking about here? Because we have, I think, hamlets in that area - the Mount Lorne hamlet, and the Carcross has a little community association. I don't believe Marsh Lake has very much at the present time.

I'm just wondering what is meant by this, and where are we going with this kind of thing. So, maybe the minister could put something on the record so I can get back to these individuals and maybe give them some idea of what was envisioned with this section and what the Carcross First Nation is talking about.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, I was not aware that the Carcross-Tagish First Nation was out consulting on what effectively are future local-service agreements between peoples. I admire their enthusiasm, given that they have not yet got a land claim agreement. I would think that that would be pretty much a necessary first step before we get too far down the road here.

Nevertheless, the project, overall, is led by Community and Transportation Services, to the extent that the Yukon government has any involvement at all. It's a variation on local service agreements where there is a First Nation and a municipal government in a particular area, where there is a desire to ensure a coordinated delivery of local services and the services are very much focused on what is happening locally in that area.

I suspect that the Carcross-Tagish First Nation is interested in beginning discussions on coordinated service delivery with local people soon. At least, I take it from what the member read out that they are interested in starting discussions very quickly, and ultimately, perhaps, sending a constructive signal that they want coordinated action, that they want good, constructive relations with other people in their area. Ultimately, I presume, from the tone of the letter that the member read out, that they are looking to strike some arrangements shortly after the land claims final agreement is signed and in force, so that they don't miss a beat. I'm assuming that's what's happening.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, I think the Government Leader can appreciate the concern that some residents have when they read this and, in fairness to the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, they talk about having discussions in the community - going out and discussing this issue with the people. But when people see things like land-base planning, infrastructure services, taxation, and those kinds of things, they get concerned.

I have a few questions for the minister and I know he may not be able to answer them on his feet here today but maybe the minister could explain for the record, or by way of a legislative return - fairly quickly because I want to get back to these people fairly quickly - what is the meaning of section 24.7.1.

The other concern I've had raised is, some of the areas actually have representation already. I think the Mount Lorne area has elected representation. Certainly, Carcross does and Tagish does, but Marsh Lake doesn't. What about the non-organized areas? Who speaks for them in any kind of an arrangement such as this?

The issue that I heard in the Marsh Lake area is this: what about overlapping claims? I was under the impression, and so are many others, that it was the Kwanlin Dun First Nation whose traditional lands went out in that Marsh Lake area and now we're hearing from the Carcross-Tagish First Nation that their traditional lands are there. So, there must be an issue of overlapping claims there, and how is that sorted out?

Maybe the minister could provide a map of the Kwanlin Dun traditional land in those three areas - Carcross, Tagish and Marsh Lake - as well as the Carcross-Tagish First Nation map or any other overlapping maps in that area, so that residents can get an idea of what is meant by that, and m

aybe some assurances from the Government Leader today.

The Government Leader indicated, on his feet today, that the first step he thought would have been the settling of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation claim, and then they would maybe move into this region or district structure section of the UFA at a later date. There would be a consultative process, I would suspect, that would drive that. This seems to be the cart a little ahead of the horse with respect to that.

I think that's what's confusing some people. They're wondering if that is actually what is being talked about at the land claims table and if a deal is going to be cut where we hear it's settled in Carcross-Tagish First Nation in an announcement like was made at White River. I think the minister should clarify that. I assured people that I didn't think that would happen and I think that there would have to be some kind of a consultative process with all residents in the area and some kind of concurrence from the three or four different areas that they would want to move into this type of local governance.

Maybe the minister could, for the record, try and allay some of the fears of people who are worried that this thing might be a fait accompli before they have a chance to discuss it.

I understand there was a meeting in Carcross, a meeting in Tagish and maybe one at Mount Lorne. I'm not quite sure of this, but three of those areas have been talked to. Marsh Lake hasn't been yet, and I'm not aware if there is a meeting set up for Marsh Lake.

My concern is that before we go much further in these kinds of issues, not just in this area, but in all areas of the Yukon, we should be pretty clear with the general public about what section 24.7.0 really means and how it will affect people with their property taxes, decision making, local governance, who they vote for, what kind of powers they'll have and what this means.

It's not clear by this what it does mean, other than they can reach an agreement. Maybe an agreement is reached by a big, long consultative process and everyone agrees to the power they have. I don't know. Maybe the minister can enlighten us on that.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I certainly will look into the matter more carefully, Mr. Chair. I wasn't aware, as I said, that this discussion was going on in a community. I know - and the member can take this to the bank - that local governance on public lands will not be negotiated at the land claims table. That's not what the UFA is all about.

There is a commitment, I know, in the land claim that at some point in the future, if it makes sense, other forms of local governance can be discussed between First Nations and local governments and that the Yukon government will participate in some constructive way. But at no time will there be a First Nation final agreement which involves the design of local governance on public lands; that's something for the general public to debate and discuss.

There is no doubt that, particularly in the environs around Whitehorse, it's a hot topic. The public will not be dealt out of that discussion by the land claims negotiations. That won't happen; not with me here.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I think there's some urgency in clearing this matter up, as to exactly what this means. The way it was raised to me by a resident of Carcross and a resident of Tagish - and one at Marsh Lake, actually - is, "Is it true that under the land claims they're going to negotiate a deal with the Carcross-Tagish First Nation where they're going to be the ones who control and levy our taxes?"

That's the kind of fears that are out there with respect to not understanding exactly what this means. I said, well - after I got a copy of this sent to me - this doesn't say that, but it does talk about taxes, services and infrastructure and the kinds of things that we now get delivered from the territorial government in those areas.

So I can understand their concern about that changing in any way where they feel they don't have an opportunity to speak to the elected representatives who make those changes, or do rezoning or planning, or levying taxes, and people were concerned about that. I just want assurances from the Government Leader that in no way, shape or form will any changes be made to private and public lands that will affect the people who are on them or occupying them now, that third-party interests will be protected, and if there are any changes whatsoever at the land claims table dealing with section 24.7.0, the Regional District Structures, that there'll be an extensive consultative process where all residents have an opportunity to participate and agree one way or the other on what they want to see these new structures cover.

I'm not necessarily for it or against it right at the present time, because I'm like a lot of other people out there: I'm not sure what's meant by that and how the structures will be set up, or how the process will take place.

If the minister could just give me those assurances, I will, for the minister's benefit, get copies of these two documents - one is a background document, and one is a concept proposal - and provide them for the minister so his officials can look at what is being passed around in those areas where people have been raising questions.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I appreciate that. All I can guess is that what is being discussed is the equivalent of local service agreements. They're being discussed in every community where there's a land claims agreement. For example, determination is made as to which government is going to provide water/sewer services, or maintenance of a water/sewer service system, or grading of roads. There are any number of issues that require coordinated delivery and, in some cases, shared delivery.

These discussions also must include issues around who pays and how they pay.

So, certainly that is a common feature of the land claims implementation that I am fully aware of. I'm not completely aware of all that is being anticipated in this proposal.

With respect to property tax and the discussion around tax room or the ordering of taxation regimes, certainly governments with a land base have the ability to tax on their own land, on settlement lands. There is no anticipation whatsoever of First Nation governments being able to tax persons on public lands. That's not anticipated in the land claim agreement, and it's not being discussed at any tax table between governments at all.

Mr. Phillips: I'm sure some people will be happy to hear that, because that's what I thought was the case, and I conveyed that very same message to those people, that they will have the ability under category A lands - any developed lands, I guess - to tax whatever, but if you were public lands at Marsh Lake, Tagish or wherever, the taxing authority was the Government of the Yukon and would remain so.

I think that when the Government Leader reads this, he'll see that it envisions a little more than a sharing. It reads, "The culture, traditions and beliefs of the peoples of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation are toward dialogue, unity and sharing of the opportunities available to all residents in their traditional territory under a joint-district governance structure." So, they're looking at a governance structure, and they quote this section of the UFA to lay out that that's the area where they feel they have the ability to do that, and like I read out before, there are some pretty heavy-duty areas in there: renewable/non-renewable resource management, development assessment - that's pretty extensive - economic development, land issues such as land-based planning and jurisdiction, infrastructure, services, taxation and quality of life.

So, those are a little more than sharing issues such as water delivery and some of the things that the minister mentioned. This envisions being a little more involved than that, and that's why some of the residents of the area who have come out and spoken to me about it are concerned.

I guess my caution to the Government Leader would be to have a look at this, and it might be just fine, but if nothing else, there is really a lot of room right here for an educational process for the general public of what some of these sections of the UFA really mean.

Maybe the minister can answer this question: does the Government of the Yukon envision that section 24.7.1 would encompass these kinds of things? Is that what it thought, or were these kinds of things talking about the water delivery and the other less important issues that the minister mentioned? That would be my concern. What did we envision when we put this in the agreement, and is there some kind of a document that was the basis for the argument for this agreement, that it was negotiated in land claims? Maybe it would be useful to table the Government of the Yukon's concept or the federal government's or the First Nations' concept of what this meant, so that people would understand more clearly before this gets too far down the road and people get too opinionated one way or the other, what exactly it's all about. It might be useful to do that.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I can tell the member I really do wish that the Government of Yukon, the federal government and the Carcross-Tagish First Nation would actually sign a First Nation final agreement. I think that's a pretty important first step.

The provisions in the UFA, which talk about district government are visionary, long-term, way-down-the-road discussion -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Or more. Certainly the immediate needs, besides settling the First Nation final agreement, is to work out local service agreements for the categories of things that I've mentioned.

The Yukon government has made no policy decision, has not considered in any way giving up any authority under DAP. DAP has not even be created yet. We haven't got our final agreement. We're not talking about giving up responsibilities in these areas. One step at a time. I would encourage the First Nation and the local people, if they felt there were things that they wanted to do together, that if they felt they could do a good job of certain things, to work together. Certainly, that would turn a corner in the Carcross area, which would be much appreciated by all residents.

I'm certain of that. But, for the here and now, what the government is doing is simply trying to negotiate a land claim. We believe there is a substance of an agreement already that, with some further negotiations, we can finish. Then we get on to the next steps. I'll have to look into it further. I don't know what the Carcross-Tagish First Nation is pursuing specifically, but if it's simple cooperation, I applaud them. If it's something complicated that is many, many years down the road, that's certainly a decision that our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren are going to have to make at some point if they want to change government structures.

The land claims agreement does speak to the issue of district government. I don't dispute that for one moment. But, we should take things one step at a time. I would think that the first step is a First Nation final agreement. That's got to be the first step.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, the concern that I'm hearing is that there is a perception out there that the Government of the Yukon is somewhat supportive of this proposal. I don't think anyone's been going around exactly saying that, but no one's going around saying that it isn't, either. So, I think it's important to get it on the record from the Government Leader that he wasn't aware of this proposal, first of all, and that support certainly is not there until such time as you get a chance to read it and know one way or the other if you feel you support it. The other thing is that there are a few steps along the road, as the minister has said. One is to settle the First Nations agreement.

Maybe if the Government Leader could also give us his assurance that, on any changes whatsoever to local governance of these areas, there will be full public consultation with the residents in those areas and that they will respect the views of the majority of the residents in the areas if that's the regime they wish to move into. No one really knows quite yet what we're talking about. It might be more on the water delivery thing, it might be mild and there might be no opposition to it, but I think that if it gets into taxation, infrastructure, planning and those kinds of things, you might find that, unless it's pretty clear, there might be a lot of opposition to it. The third assurance I would like to get from the Government Leader is that we somehow get out there and explain to both First Nation and non-First Nation what some of these clauses exactly mean,

or what we interpret them to mean.

When I had residents - lay people - call me, and they looked at this section, they read it - I mean, I've read it as well, and I can pass a copy of that over to the minister. It's a section out of the UFA, 24.7. It doesn't say any of these things, but it doesn't say no, either, so it's kind of pretty general - "remain under the control of Yukon residents, include representations and may develop common administrative or planning structures within a community." That's pretty broad stuff.

So, I think we have to kind of get a better understanding of exactly what was intended at the negotiating table with respect to this particular section and the recent document that's been circulated by the Carcross-Tagish First Nation. In fact, they say the agreements therefore frame the legal and political context of government-to-government relations between the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, Canada and Yukon, specifically section 24.7.1 to the Yukon umbrella final agreement, and stipulates for the concept of regional or district governance, and then it goes on to that section.

Obviously, they believe that that section gives them the power to at least establish some dialogue with respect to this new type of government. I mean, there's a whole ton of questions there. I think there are two difference governments at the Carcross corner. You have a hamlet there, and then Tagish. Are they molded into one with Carcross? It opens up a whole can of worms in how it works. Maybe we need, before it gets too far down the road, some further clarification before people get pretty germane ideas about what's going to happen, including myself. It seems to be a pretty comprehensive proposal.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I can only add for the member that, first of all, any new structure of government in the territory would have to get the concurrence of the majority of residents in the area. That's just a basic principle that I think we've all come to adopt.

Certainly, we're not proposing to change anything in the near future, to my knowledge, notwithstanding potential changes to the Municipal Act.

With respect to the creation of new forms of government, I think the Yukon government would also have to take a conscious decision if it wanted to give up some responsibilities in one way or another. That would be a decision that people would want to make very carefully, as well.

So, it's got to be double barrelled. The Yukon government has agreed to devolve responsibilities and the local government has to, in the first instance, be created by a majority of the residents, or supported by a majority of the residents, either voting or however it is done, but certainly the sense of a majority making the decision is an important one.

Again, I would only stress that I think what we should be focusing on, in my own personal view, is getting the foundation, which is the First Nation final agreement - negotiated, and then work out the issues one by one. Then as people mature, let the generations of people who come after us work to improve life and make it even better. We need to make sure we don't skip a step, and one pretty important step not to skip is getting the final agreement.

Ms. Duncan: I'd like to ask the Government Leader some questions with regard to devolution and I apologize if I missed the answer in his earlier remarks. The minister had indicated that the target date was June 1998 for an agreement and December 1998 for formal transfer of the programs. This seems to me to be a later date than what was originally targeted by the Government Leader and I'm wondering if he is able, as much as publicly possible, to give us an indication as to what the sticking points are or why the delay? What's taking this long? I understand that devolution is a complex process, but what's happening at the discussion table?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, there are a number of complex issues to address. Certainly, the human resource side is but one, but an important one to address, but there are others. We've already gone through the due diligence process last year to determine whether or not we felt that we were in the negotiating ball park for the ongoing operating costs of the program, and we determined at that time that, yes, we felt we were.

What remained outstanding, however, were the one-time costs associated with the transfer and they are being negotiated now. There is, for example, an assessment of the environmental liability and what the financial commitment would be from the federal government for that. There is an issue around the subject of, for example, forestry and doing an analysis of our forests. What are the one-time costs associated with doing that. We're getting baseline information.

These issues are tough issues because neither government wants to leave any money on the table, so to speak. We have to be satisfied that we can basically do the job. As I've indicated to the negotiators and in the House, we're not going to buy the transfer with our funds, but we're not going to be insisting on the program being generously funded. We want it to be properly funded and we're hoping that, by June, we will come to an agreement on those matters. Hence the basic core agreement, after which the rest are important administrative details.

So, we are currently targeting June, to see if we can make that date, with an agreement on all the administrative details to be pursued by the end of the calendar year. That's our target now. I feel that it is achievable.

There are a number of complicated negotiations going on currently, but we are applying resources and time, and if time and energy are factors, we will certainly be doing our share to advance the negotiations.

Ms. Duncan: The Government Leader's answer has given rise to a number of questions. I'd like to begin with some of those.

The Government Leader mentioned forestry. Is there any suggestion that forestry might be separated from the devolution process? Is there any suggestion of that, and what is his position?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: No, all land management responsibilities would be transferred to the Yukon at the same time. Our position has been - and this was consistent with the federal proposal of the summer of 1996 - that the transfer should take place at once because of the way the system is managed. There are resource management officers, for example, in the communities that are responsible for everything from small environmental reviews, issuing forest permits, land use permits and doing site inspections - and all in one office and represented by one person. This is not something you can divide up easily. So, for the sake of administrative efficiency, if nothing else, the proposal is to go with the entire regime.

It sounds big by our standards, but it's certainly not unmanageable in my view, and there have been devolutions, even in the last couple of years in Canada, that are a lot better. The harmonization of the tax regime, for example, in eastern Canada involved, I think, a couple of thousand employees. That was not considered impossible. Why can't we manage the transfer of 230 employees? Not that it won't be a significant event in our lives, but I don't think it's impossible.

Ms. Duncan: I would certainly agree that it's going to be a very significant event in Yukon's history and I look forward to discussing it further.

In that regard, the Government Leader indicated December 1998 for formal transfer. Presumably then the Yukon would have to have in place a number of pieces of legislation in order to accept this. Is the minister giving an indication that preparation of this legislation is under way and that we can look forward to a rather heavy fall legislative agenda?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, yes. I'm not certain how heavy the agenda will be or how much heavier the agenda will seem if we pass reference legislation. At this point, we're not looking at changing the federal regulatory regime, but we've done some analysis and, depending on the timing, we may well come forward in the fall with reference legislation. As much as people, I know, want to change federal legislation - or there are many people out there who want to change federal legislation - we're not engaged in the process of that kind of policy review at all. That's for another generation, another time, another Legislature.

What we're proposing to do now is simply assume the federal regime, get the transfer put to bed, and then in future years go through the process of consulting with the public, determining whether or not there are any changes required to the mining legislation or the lands legislation. That would be a process for the future. It's not a process that we're anticipating doing now.

Ms. Duncan: The Government Leader will forgive me if this is too simplistic an example. What I heard him just say was that, for example, if the federal government have put in place their timber harvesting regulations, then December 1998 happens and targets are met, forestry is transferred to the Yukon, we will just go with those federal regulations until such time as we have a consultation process or some method for changing them. Is my understanding correct with that simple example?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: No, what I'm referring to is the legislative framework: quartz mining act, placer mining act, Yukon waters act. This legislation we would simply adopt. The regulations pursuant to that and the policies we could change as we wish. But in terms of any major overhaul of federal legislation, we've not made any commitments to it, we're not planning to do it and it will not be done in this term of government. What we're trying to do is get the transfer.

Ms. Duncan: Yes, I thank the Government Leader for that response.

The Government Leader mentioned the policies. Then we would want to have forestry policies in place by December 1998, as I understand it from the minister's answer. Could he give us a time frame as to when the forestry policy might be available for public discussion then?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I think it's probably fair to say that we're much more advanced in the forest policy development than we would be in reviewing any other legislation. So we expect that we will have a forest policy, a forest management plan and, perhaps in this term and quite likely in this term, an act, a piece of legislation. But as far as the rest of the resource management legislation that is currently managing the land in the Yukon, we're not anticipating any changes in the next three years.

Ms. Duncan: Perhaps I'll follow up further on the specific forestry issues with questions to the forest commissioner.

I have just a couple more questions for the Government Leader. In the various responses to questions and so on, I have detected a sense of optimism. In fact - I don't have Hansard in front of me - I believe the Government Leader mentioned something late this year possibly with regard to Shakwak. Are negotiations or lobbying efforts regarding Shakwak assigned to an individual in Executive Council Office or is that assigned to an individual in Community and Transportation Services? Has someone been assigned that responsibility?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, it's essentially a joint effort, Mr. Chair. Certainly, pursuing a continuation of the Shakwak program is very high on our agenda. I think it's fair to be optimistic, from the signals we've received so far, that not this summer, but next year, we will see a renewal of the program.

What we are less optimistic about, but still pursuing very aggressively, is the opportunity to advance funding from that program into the current - not the current year; we haven't finished it yet - but into the fiscal year 1998-99. While we're less optimistic about that, there is some room for optimism, in that we understand that there will be a vote in May in the U.S. Congress. Both the Senate and the House - in the big omnibus budget bill - have identified funds for Shakwak in separate amendments to that bill. As long as those amendments aren't dealt out of the equation down there, in their complicated way of doing things, we may well see some advancing of those funds.

Now, the Minister of Community and Transportation Services will make some announcement before too long on the lobbying efforts, but they are certainly extensive and they involve both departments - both ECO and the Department of Community and Transportation Services.

Ms. Duncan: I'll look forward to that announcement. I don't think there's any more information on that specific proposal forthcoming at this point in time.

I just have one final question, and it relates to a comment made by the commissioner responsible for DAP. The commissioner mentioned TAG, or technical advisory group. A technical advisory group under the structure of energy, and the way that the Utilities Board works, and the way that the companies - Yukon Energy and Yukon Electrical Company work - the technical advisory group and the bill for the TAG group with respect to Aishihik, which is expected to be quite extensive, is ultimately, as I understand it, to be paid by the ratepayers.

Who would pay for the technical advisory group under the DAP process?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I'm not certain that there is a precisely similar body. The technical advisory group for Aishihik Lake was a body with a very specific mandate. It could pursue a lot of scientific information to determine the effects of water levels on Aishihik Lake, among other things, but I don't believe there is a precisely similar arrangement for DAP. There is a public, non-government focus group that they consult with, but perhaps the commissioner for DAP can provide more details on its makeup.

Mr. Livingston: I'm not sure exactly what the member is asking for regarding DAP, but certainly there are opportunities for public involvement. In the early stages, there will be public registry, for example, of any project applications and opportunity for involvement early on for the public in any assessment process.

Ms. Duncan: Perhaps I could redirect the question to the DAP commissioner, since he was the one who first raised it.

He made reference in response to my colleague about a technical advisory group. I'm just wanting the DAP commissioner, in short form, to elaborate on that precise format. If it's simply interested members of the public, that's one thing; however, if it's a technical group, such as the Government Leader's just noted is in place with Aishihik Lake - it's very technical and very scientific answers that are being generated - who pays is my question for that technical advisory group? In the case of Aishihik Lake, it's the ratepayers. Who pays under DAP?

Mr. Livingston: I think the member will be able to appreciate that I am not able to provide the member with an answer with that kind of detail in any definitive kind of way. The fact of the matter is that we haven't completed the negotiations under DAP. I can say in general terms that we do envision a technical advisory committee providing advice, and that that technical advisory committee would, in all likelihood, vary with the type of project that was before the assessment process, and that would be a re