Whitehorse, Yukon
Monday, March 30, 1998 - 1:30 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Are there any tributes?
Introduction of visitors.
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I would like to introduce to the members of this chamber Pat Gillespie of the Canadian Diabetes Association, who is with us today for a statement on our diabetes education program.
Speaker: Are there any documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have three legislative returns from last week's debate.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I have for tabling today the 1998-99 business plan for the Queen's Printer agency and the 1998-99 business plan for the fleet vehicle agency.
Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?
Are there any petitions?
Are there any bills to be introduced?
Are there any notices of motion?
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mrs. Edelman: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should investigate the possibility of creating a position of children's advocate to
(a) provide advocacy to children who are receiving services pursuant to the Children's Act and who require the assistance of an advocate to ensure due consideration of their rights, interests and viewpoints when decisions are made; and
(b) identify issues and provide information and advice with respect to the nature, adequacy, availability, accessibility, effectiveness and appropriateness of services which are offered to children.
Mr. McRobb: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House recognizes that
(1) the federal loan on the assets of Yukon Energy Corporation, YEC, requires YEC to generate certain revenues each month to meet this fixed cost;
(2) when the Faro mine is not operating and consuming 40 percent of YEC's output, this fixed cost must be met through increased payments for other customer classes;
(3) the secondary sale of excess hydro energy would benefit ratepayers by reducing the import and burning of fossil fuels; and
(4) the reduction of fixed costs associated with the repayment provisions in the federal note would enable ratepayers to enjoy more stable electricity rates
and
THAT it is the opinion of this House that
(1) the repayment provisions of the federal note do not sufficiently recognize the impact of the Faro mine closure on the Yukon economy and discourage secondary sales of excess hydro energy; and
(2) the fixed costs associated with the federal note should be reduced;
and
THAT this House urges the Yukon government to continue its efforts with the Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to renegotiate the repayment provisions of the federal loan on YEC's assets.
Speaker: Are there any notices of motion?
Are there any statements by ministers?
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Rural electrification and telecommunication policies
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform this House and the Yukon public about recent improvements to the rural electrification policy and the rural telecommunications policy.
The lack of adequate telephone service has been the most common concern expressed to me by rural residents. Addressing this concern has been a major policy commitment of our government, and I believe these changes will be welcomed by many rural Yukoners.
These initiatives address our government's goal of ensuring that people in rural areas have access to high quality power and telephone services that are reliable and reasonably priced. Last fall, our government laid out our principles for improving telecommunication services to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.
The rural electrification and telephone program has now been separated into two companion policies, which I would like to table at this point in time. The new rural electrification policy and rural telecommunications policy are tailored to better reflect the requirements of both electrical and telecommunication services.
Our government will continue to take an active role in helping rural Yukoners with proposals to extend new electrical services or telecommunications services to their properties.
The new policies introduce a revised voting process for project approval, which will be administered by the government. Rural property owners will be directly involved in both the final planning and the final project approval process.
We recognize that the previous majority required for project approval was a difficult threshold to achieve. The new policies lower the special majority required for both planning and project approval to 65 percent, which represents a very strong show of community support.
Funding provided under the two policies continues to be 100-percent recoverable through the levy of the local improvement fee on benefiting properties. However, the government has proposed a deferral measure that will provide comfort to the minority of property owners who do not wish to subscribe to electrical or telephone service immediately.
These policy changes further the goals of respecting our environment through environmentally responsible energy options. The rural electrification policy has been expanded to include sustainable energy projects. Financing will be available to property owners for wind, solar and microhydro projects that service individual properties.
Our government continues to work on other initiatives to meet our commitments to rural Yukon people, such as a rural services policy and the CRTC hearing on high-cost service areas.
The new rural electrification policy and rural telecommunication policy - important initiatives for improving services for many rural residents.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jenkins: This ministerial statement speaks of creating partnerships between property owners, service providers and the Yukon government for the extension of telecommunications and electrical distribution systems in rural Yukon.
Mr. Speaker, the role of government in society is to build the infrastructure for the tripod for the provision of all of these services for a society. That tripod - the three legs - are the electrical grids and service, communications and transportation.
What we have here is a definite downloading of another area that government is responsible for - a downloading of those costs. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, in Yukon, where we have monopoly service providers of electrical services and telecommunication services, are these companies contributing less and less to the projects as a service provider, and yet are allowed to maintain their monopoly?
What we have is a program that has the threshold reduced to 65-percent participation, and if the property owner chooses to opt out, he is just given a five-year hiatus and then has to pay.
Perhaps the minister, in his rebuttal, could advise how the Yukon government is going to secure their charge against the properties, and especially the First Nations properties. How are we going to ensure collection of these costs that are front-end advanced by the government?
It's very, very hard to comment on this initiative, when there are no costs provided or examples of this program, and I'm very disappointed in the Member for Lake Laberge. He's advised rural Yukoners previously not to do anything until these new policies were announced. Both these policies are very short on the financial details, as to the costs the consumers will eventually bear.
Mrs. Edelman: I rise today on behalf of the Yukon Liberal caucus to respond to this ministerial statement on the rural electrification and telephone program.
Generally speaking, our caucus supports the need for a rural phone and electrical program. We will analyze the policies just tabled and will comment on them during general debate in Community and Transportation Services this afternoon.
It is important to note our continued support for a program that remains 100-percent recoverable from lot owners for the services being brought into each property. I'm still a little mystified as to where the minister got the figure of 65-percent approval for planning and project. The minister dropped the figure from 75 percent of people in an area agreeing to bring either phone, electrical or both into an unserved area. He dropped that figure to 65 percent, and I would like to know if there was any logical or fact-based reason why this figure was picked. Why not 70 percent or 60 percent or even 51 percent?
I'm also wondering if the minister could give an indication as to what this government's position is as far as the CRTC's hearings on high-cost serving areas. Most of rural Yukon is a high-cost serving area. It is my understanding that it is possible that there may be a fund established under CRTC guidelines, so that all phone companies put money into the fund. This fund will help defray the cost of new infrastructure into high-cost serving areas.
I've asked the minister about this issue in the past and have received no substantial answer. Is this government a proponent of such a fund, and will he be making a statement to the CRTC about this issue?
Lastly, it's about time that the rural electrification program starts to recognize and pay for alternate energy sources at remote rural locations, but once again, we will be responding to that aspect of the rural electrification program later today in C&TS debate.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, certainly I expect nothing but what I have received for this from the official opposition, but let me say to the official opposition that what we do is done in a very thoughtful and a very deliberate manner. It is done in consultation with the people, and certainly it is done in partnership with the people.
We have certainly realized that government's role is to build infrastructure and to continue with infrastructure. The member can certainly recall many times when I have said that in the House.
No, we do not look at this as a downloading of costs - certainly not. We look at this as the maintenance and the revamping of an existing program that has been, I believe, in basis since 1984. It's a very thoughtful program. It's a user-friendly program, and it is going to continue to be so. It has always been a full cost-recovery program, and under this government, it will be maintained as such. But certainly, it is going to be much easier.
As to the security against, well certainly that is all part of the process, and we'll be working with people to ensure that people are going to be able to work with the process, and this is not a process where you're going to dictate to people, but work with people on a partnership basis.
Certainly, I think that everybody should be very helpful and thoughtful and enthused about that: that we are going to be able to work to bring telephone service that hasn't been in existence and to bring quality telephone service to people that need it. That is the intent of this program.
So, I thank you very much for your critique of it. It's a very logical process.
Certainly, on the CRTC our comments are very well-known against the high cost of service. Just as recently as last October, we put forth to the CRTC four principles of which that is one. There is a part of the process in there where we say that there should be a nationally funded fund and that all of the providers should be putting money into it. That is there now, and that has been massaged into the system at this time.
We also have the Northwestel model, where the Northwestel model has a surcharge, I guess you might call it, of 10 cents right now, within the whole service area to provide that infrastructure to communities within, in this case, the Northwest Territories. So, certainly, we'll be continuing to work with Northwestel. We have another meeting scheduled in the very near future with the president of Northwestel and I'm going to be working and continue to work - and certainly bringing forward the comments that I hear from both sides of the House - to enable us to work with those folks and other folks to provide the services that are so critically needed here in the Yukon Territory.
So, I thank you for somewhat conditional support and the critique that you have given me, and I will take all comments and move forward with them on behalf of all of the people of the Yukon.
Thank you very much.
INTRODUCTION OF VISITOR
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just before I begin my statement, I would like to introduce Ida Calmegane, who is from CYFN. Ida has also been, along with Pat, one of the principal drivers behind our diabetes education program.
Applause
Diabetic education program
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, much has been said over the past months, both in House and outside, of the need to create new partnerships within the Yukon to foster safer, healthier communities.
Today, I rise to advise my colleagues of an important new health services partnership involving the Yukon government, the Yukon Hospital Corporation, the Council of Yukon First Nations, family physicians and the Canadian Diabetes Association.
Within the next several weeks, the Department of Health and Social Services, with its partners, will begin accepting patients in the Yukon's first diabetic education program.
Mr. Speaker, diabetes is one of Canada's most prevalent health problems, and is linked to major killers such as heart disease and kidney failure. It is also implicated in many debilitating conditions, including amputations, hearing loss and blindness.
It directly affects between five and 10 percent of all Canadians. Among First Nations people, the incidence of diabetes is several times the national average.
Here in the Yukon, this silent killer affects between 1,500 and 3,000 people, with approximately 84 to 96 new patients diagnosed each year.
Diabetes, however, is an illness for which education and management can make a considerable difference. Research shows a definite need for such an education program in the Yukon.
Until now, diabetes teaching has varied depending on the knowledge and availability of the health care workers. Some patients receive diabetic education from their family doctors, some from nursing staff and dietitians at the Whitehorse General Hospital, and others from community resources, such as public health nurses and home care nurses.
In-depth services have required referral to a program either in British Columbia or Alberta. The cost for persons attending diabetic out-patient clinics in Vancouver has significantly increased over the last five years. One-third to one-half of doctor-referred patients have gone outside specifically to attend teaching clinics. Local training, management and followup will reduce the number of persons sent south with complications. It will also reduce the cost to both the patient and family members who also need to accompany them.
The Yukon diabetic education program is the result of careful thought with direct input from diabetes patients and their families. They made it clear that they need and want a culturally sensitive coordinated approach that is closer to home and uses local supports and community resources.
A three- or four-day program will be presented 10 times a year, with individuals plans developed by the client and the education team. Educational plans will include diet and exercise counselling, the nature of the primary disease and its secondary effects, administering medications, monitoring blood and urine and coping with chronic disease. There will be education for family and care providers and a followup for people who have been newly diagnosed.
This locally based program means that people will not have to wait as long for training and they will have the opportunities to learn when they are ready. The teaching facilities for this program are nearing completion and the first education program should be ready to deliver in June.
We're very excited about this program and the benefits and support it will provide to people with this chronic condition. It will mean that they can receive the tools they need to deal with their conditions sooner and in a setting that is more comfortable for them.
Thank you.
Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Yukon Party and the official opposition, I rise in support of this initiative. The need to create new partnerships within the Yukon to foster safer healthy communities was a major initiative of the previous Yukon Party government and we commend the current government for continuing with this initiative.
The diabetic education program will not only be cost effective, but it will provide a culturally sensitive coordinated service here at home. This will mean Yukoners who are afflicted with this serious disease will have more community resources to assist them and people to support them. Care givers and family members will receive the necessary training much quicker than was previously the case, Mr. Speaker. There will be better followup for people who have been newly diagnosed.
Diabetes is a major health problem in Yukon, which is linked to major killers such as heart disease and many disabilitating conditions, such as blindness and amputation. Anything that can help combat this dreaded affliction will be welcomed by this side of the House.
Would the minister in his rebuttal perhaps be a little bit more specific as to the exact numbers of Yukoners afflicted with diabetes - 1,500 to 3,000 individuals is a 100-percent variance, especially in a population of some 33,000 individuals, Mr. Speaker.
We applaud the minister for introducing this education program and urge him to continue with its full support.
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today on behalf of the Yukon Liberal caucus to respond to the Health minister's statement on the new diabetic education program.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this coordination of diabetic education is needed here in the Yukon. Over the years, I've had many friends and acquaintances who have been diagnosed with diabetes. The trip outside to learn about how to manage diabetes is often as stressful as learning about the initial diagnosis.
Diabetes is a dreadful disease. It kills, it maims, and it cannot be cured, only managed.
In the Yukon, diabetes has been an even greater issue in the last 10 years. Over the last 10 to 20 years, more and more seniors have decided to stay in the Yukon after retirement. The prevalence of diabetes in the 65-plus age group is, of course, almost twice what it is for the younger population.
In the Yukon, too, our population is almost 25 percent of First Nations descent, and we note that the people of aboriginal descent are three to five times more likely than the general population to have or to develop diabetes.
In the Yukon, we consume alcohol at a far greater rate than most of Canada, and we must realize that alcohol dependency is one of the leading causes of late-onset diabetes.
Diabetes education is so important. The Canadian Diabetic Association says that 30 percent of people with type-1 diabetes and 70 percent of people with type-2 diabetes never receive appropriate diabetes education and self-care programming. That fact that we are now offering Yukon's first diabetic education program here in Whitehorse is good news.
Of course, I do have a couple of questions. Firstly, although juvenile diabetes is actually quite rare, we do on occasion have children diagnosed with diabetes here in the Yukon. Is there a component in the new local program specifically teach children and their parents about diabetes care, or will children continue to travel outside for these clinics?
Secondly, will people from the outside communities be coming into Whitehorse for diabetes education, or will they go and travel outside for that? If these individuals from outside of Whitehorse are to travel into town, will there be mileage allowances, hotel allowances and food allowances for the patients or for their families, and how many family members will the department pay for? How often will the department pay for clinics - once a year or when there is a change in condition - and if you are going to be paying for people to come into the diabetes clinic, is there any consideration being given for people coming in from the rural communities to go to specialist clinics in other areas? How many people will be attending the clinics per year, and how much is this going to save the territory over the current model, where we send patients outside to B.C. or Alberta for treatment?
In short, Mr. Speaker, I need a few more details.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I am here to provide the details.
First of all, with regard to the numbers of diabetic patients, that's a number that is generally arrived at through population health statistics. I think one of the things that's significant is that last year, based on a major report, there was a change of the threshold among the medical community of what is diagnosed as diabetes, and we're beginning to see that reflected now in the fact that there is now more routine testing for diabetes. So, I believe that we will see firmer figures in the next few years. As I said before, we are currently diagnosing between 84 and 96 individuals a year in this program.
With regard to the program, one of the principles of this new program is that it will provide education for care givers, parents and individuals who will be involved with diabetes as well. So, we see opportunities in working with parents as well as with young people.
Naturally, juvenile diabetes has its own impact, so that will have to be an assessment, for example, with the physician, if they require some specialized work with that patient.
With regard to the rural people travelling in, we will be providing accommodations in that regard, and we will be taking a look at what other opportunities we can provide. Our approximate cost of the program will be about $11,300 in one time set-up costs, which essentially is the renovation of the teaching kitchen - equipment, that kind of thing - about $79,400 in ongoing costs, and that includes a nurse educator, an out-patient counselling nutritionist, equipment, books, things of that nature. It's expected that the costs in this area will be realized from savings to our medical travel program.
I think there are a couple of other features with this that I think are rather sort of unique, and I'll just take the opportunity to just mention them. One will be a 24-hour telephone and answering machine access to the nurse educator and counsellor. The messages will be checked daily and calls returned. What this will allow is that for information, education and referrals, people can say, "Okay, when's your next clinic coming up?", and people can be booked in for that.
As I said, we're looking at 10 sessions a year for three to four days. I think one of the things that having the feedback will do, as people go through the program, they're going to come out of it, and they're going to have some questions around certain dietary needs, or certain management needs, and they'll perhaps want to check up to see if they can do this or they can take this other kind of food. So I think that will provide some feedback.
I think we're on the right track. I'm very pleased with the cooperation, particularly the cooperation we've had from our physicians, and I really have to commend CYFN in this regard. CYFN has recognized that this is a major health concern for our First Nation population, and I would like to thank them for their support.
Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Travel expenses for government members, Member for Whitehorse Centre
Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Government Leader on government travel. It has come to our attention that the MLA for Whitehorse Centre attended the Arctic Winter Games in Yellowknife for a period of eight days at government expense. I want to thank the Government Leader for sending down the actual travel claims to us so that we could use them even when we didn't ask for them, but it was nice of him to send them down. But as a result of that, I do have some questions that I believe need to be answered.
Mr. Speaker, the expense forms are for $1,349.35 that the taxpayer has been asked to cover for lodgings and per diem costs for the Member for Whitehorse Centre for a period of eight days. The purpose of the trip given on the travel claims is Arctic Winter Games, and then sort of as an after thought, "and government business."
Since the Government Leader's approved this travel, I would like to ask him if he can advise this House what business the MLA for Whitehorse Centre was attending to on behalf of the government in Yellowknife that would take eight days?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, in the first instance, Mr. Speaker, the member went to Yellowknife with the Arctic Winter Games Yukon contingent to provide support and to attend various functions on behalf of the government. For a short time the minister was there, as well.
With respect to the government business that the member refers to as an after thought - which of course wasn't - is that the member went to speak to the Government of the Northwest Territories about local hire provisions in the diamond mining business.
Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, I understood that the Member for Whitehorse Centre was no longer the local hire commissioner. He told this Legislature that himself - that he was out of a job, that he was no longer the local hire commissioner.
Nevertheless, the MLA for Whitehorse Centre has a history of claiming he's representing the Government of Yukon when in fact he's not, such as his comments on internal trade.
Now I understand he's off on another junket to Ottawa and I want to know if the Government Leader can confirm that and if he can confirm if it's the Government of Yukon being asked to pay for this trip as well?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Member for Whitehorse Centre is no longer the commissioner for the local hire commission does not mean that, in the first instance, that he has no longer any interest in local hire and, in the second instance, that whatever information he can acquire for this government will not be useful.
So I reject the member's notion that, I guess I presume, the Member for Whitehorse Centre should not speak out on local hire again, because the commission is no longer there.
With respect to the comments he made about the member thinking he was speaking for the government on internal trade, that's patently false. That's not true, and that's been repeated many, many times in this Legislature. The member was speaking for the government with respect to the MAI, and he in fact did speak for the government on the MAI.
The member is not going to Ottawa on government business, and it is not being paid for by the government.
Mr. Ostashek: Well, the Government Leader can say it's patently false, but there was an interview done with the MLA where he said he was speaking on internal trade, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is this: ministerial travel is up by a whopping 40 percent, and now we have government backbenchers travelling all over the country on purportedly government business - very sketchy at that, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the Government Leader if he's prepared to table the travel costs of all government MLAs who have travelled outside the Yukon on government business from October 19, 1996, to present date.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, in the first instance, to answer the member's question, yes, I already have tabled that information for the members. The members can read it at their leisure.
With respect to the comments about travel being up, I would point out to the member that - and I provided this information to the member, so I'm surprised he has not quite read it yet - for the same period of time, the year 1994-95, comparing that with the year 1997-98, the Yukon Party government took 44 trips, the NDP government took 44 trips - business trips, presumably, in the Yukon Party's case, and entirely for the NDP government.
The costs, however, have increased substantially for travel since that period of time, and I provided that information to the member, so the member, in trying to raise the issue, presumably either doesn't feel that the government should travel as much as his government travelled, or is willfully ignoring information that I've provided to him.
Question re: Travel expenses for government members, Member for Whitehorse Centre
Mr. Ostashek: Every time this minister gets up to answer a question, he's got a different answer. Last time, there was only a couple of hundred dollars' difference between ministerial travel of my government and his government. The reality of it is that the NDP ministers, when they're travelling, are big spenders, and it's the size of the delegations that they're taking, not the fact of the trips they're taking.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ostashek: They may have taken only the same number of trips, but the reality of it is that it's cost the taxpayers of the Yukon 40 percent more.
Once again, my question is to the Government Leader on travel costs of his high-flying MLA for Whitehorse Centre. Yukoners are concerned enough about the travel costs for ministers, which we believe are going to hit $100,000 in this fiscal year. Now, it appears that we're going to be paying the bar tab for the Member for Whitehorse Centre.
Can the Government Leader tell me why he approved travel claims submitted for the expenses for the MLA for Whitehorse Centre, which included bar tabs for the Latitude Lounge in Yellowknife? Can he tell me why he approved that?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the government does not pay for bar tabs. The government pays for per diems, but the government does not pay for bar tabs. Secondly, on the member's comments about the costs being up 40 percent, I will point out to the member that, from 1994 to 1997, the costs were up 25.6 percent between the period when the Yukon Party were undertaking their business travel and the NDP government were undertaking business travel. But, the costs of airfares were up a minimum of 40 percent and the costs of hotels were up 38 percent. So, clearly, there is a very good rationale for the cost increase. Secondly, to point out the obvious to the member, the size of delegation that he thinks is being taken differs in no way from past experience.
Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, again I just want to say that it was very nice of the Government Leader to send these forms down so we knew exactly what we were talking about. And what he's saying right now is patently false, because they are paying the bar tabs as well as per diems, and he signed it off. The total bill from the hotel is $866.35. It's been claimed. Below that comes eight days of per diem at $58.75 for another $470, and it's been totalled up and it's been signed and approved by the Government Leader.
Can the Government Leader tell me why this member is allowed to double dip?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy is not to permit the claiming of bar tabs; the government's policy is to provide per diems and travel.
Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would to ask the Government Leader then if he reviewed this before he signed it, because it certainly doesn't appear so because there is a double claim here.
Mr. Speaker, I'll send these forms back to the Government Leader so that he does have the originals, but I would like to know now if he can assure this House that if in fact there is a mistake here it's going to be corrected and we are not going to be paying the MLA twice for his bar tab.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, if there is a mistake, certainly it will be corrected, but the government's policy is very clear on this point.
Question re: Travel, Minister of Tourism
Ms. Duncan: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. On March 25, the minister gave a ministerial statement regarding the minister's last business trip. However, there was no mention in the statement of the minister's work in Calgary. Would the minister indicate whether or not he did break his journey in Calgary, and could he indicate what business was conducted there?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, after flying to Calgary on one evening and overlaying to the next evening, I had a chance to take a tour of the Parallel Strategies workplace and to get a better understanding of what takes place with them there.
Ms. Duncan: The minister has been overheard saying that he was not just simply taking a look at the offices, he was being wined and dined by the government agency of record. Did the minister have additional meetings with the Calgary-based advertising firm, and would he provide us some details on the substance of those meetings?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I do believe it was Perrier water that I had, and that was the full extent of what I had done with that. So, it was very informative, it was a good understanding to get an idea of what one agency would do, and of course that was the whole intent of what I'd done. The Perrier water was cold.
Ms. Duncan: The minister's indicated that he had a tour of the offices, and that there was a meeting held. Would he indicate who was present at that meeting, and what was discussed? Was it simply a tour of individual offices, or what was discussed?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, just off the top of my head, I do not have the names of the gentlemen involved, but there were two gentlemen. What was discussed was strictly what they'd do and, of course, some of their workings - just a very general presentation, and no decisions or no favouritism, if that's what you're alluding to. There was certainly a look at what happens, what takes place, opportunity availed, I took it to improve myself and to improve my thoughts on behalf of all tour operators for the Yukon Territory.
Thank you.
Question re: Whitehorse Correctional Centre, safety concerns
Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the Minister of Justice on the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. In December, the minister told the House that concerns at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre had been corrected and, to use her words, "Currently there's no danger to staff or inmates."
Now, in a briefing given to the opposition in January of this year, by the former superintendent and some of his officials, the superintendent said there had just been another propane leak that they had to deal with and fix.
Is it still the minister's contention that there is currently no danger to staff or inmates at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member in the House on previous questioning and as I'm going to tell the member again today, we are ensuring that the staff are safe and that the inmates are safe, and that the facility is being operated by the management there in the best manner possible.
Mr. Cable: The minister didn't answer the question, so let me ask her this question - it's fairly straightforward - in the briefing, I was told that there was a fire marshall's report that had been done recently - that's earlier this year. Is the minister prepared to make this report public?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did answer the member's previous question and I am answering the member's questions as I'm standing here on my feet today in the Legislature. I believe that the members have been provided with the information that they're asking for now and at the technical briefing. The officials in my Justice department have been instructed to meet with the fire marshall and do meet with him on a regular basis to address both short-term and long-term priorities at WCC.
Mr. Cable: Information was provided to us on recommendations from the fire marshall in relation to an earlier report. Now I understand there is a second report. Will the minister assert to this House that the recent fire marshall's report - that's one earlier this year or late last year - raises no serious safety or health concerns?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, the fire marshall's report on the facility brings forward concerns that the officials in the department have dealt with and do respond to on a regular basis - I can assure him of that.
Question re: District governance
Mr. Phillips: I have a question for the Government Leader and it's regarding the district governance concept that we talked about awhile back between the Carcross-Tagish First Nation and the Carcross Area Advisory Planning Council, which apparently would encompass the Carcross-Tagish-Marsh Lake-Mount Lorne area. Since raising the issue on March 9 during debate of the ECO budget, more and more citizens of these areas are contacting me and raising questions and concerns. It's my understanding that this district governance would encompass authority over land use planning, renewable and non-renewal resource management, infrastructures, services, taxation and more.
This raises a lot of questions for people in those areas that will be affected. The Government Leader said he would get back to me with specific answers to my questions on March 9, and I'm getting more calls all the time. I would like to ask the Government Leader if he could inform the House today what is driving this district governance planning process.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: As the member is aware, there is provision in the land claim agreement for there to be a consideration in the future for promoting the notion of district governance. There is no definition in the land claim agreement as to how that might be undertaken.
What the Minister of Community and Transportation Services is doing, at least as far as the Government of Yukon is concerned, is undertaking some discussion with the people in the district as to what notion of area governance they would like to see in the longer term.
As I indicated to the member in the House last month, the concept is at a very preliminary stage. There has to be a lot of discussion in the communities with the area residents before anything is undertaken and the people in the area are essentially going to have to agree, at some point in the future, as to whether or not, in the first instance, they want governance of that sort and whether or not they want to band together to provide services together.
Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Government Leader that, so far, I've heard nothing but negative comments toward this type of governance. I think it's partly because people are not aware of what it means to them, and there's a fear of that. There's no statement from the Government of the Yukon. It appears to be driven by the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, which hasn't even settled its land claim yet. I know that the minister was surprised by that the last time.
I would like to ask the minister this: will the minister take hold of the process, so that the general public can get a clear understanding of what this involves? It seems like even the Government Leader isn't sure what this involves right now. So, I would like to know if the government will take hold of the process and put the brakes on everyone else right now, so that the people can have it clearly explained to them what the government actually means.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member before, there's no doubt that the notion of area governance lacks definition, and certainly the land claims agreement doesn't provide any direction in this particular regard. I did indicate to the member that, in any case, the first step would have to be that the Carcross-Tagish First Nation would have to have a land claim agreement, as would any other First Nations in the area who would be participating at some point. We are well on our way, in my view, to getting such a land claim agreement, but nevertheless, that is a prerequisite.
With respect to the future, I would suspect that these discussions will take place almost indefinitely over time, as people decide what kinds of governance they would like and how they would like to band together to ensure maximum efficiency and delivery of service. But certainly, the umbrella final agreement, which directs the negotiations for the First Nation final agreements does make reference to there being an opportunity for such discussions to take place.
Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that there are opportunities, and there is no doubt that's a revision in the umbrella final agreement, but what I'm concerned about is that the Government of Yukon doesn't seem to have control over this matter, that some First Nations are calling meetings, passing out pieces of information to people, and there isn't a lot of information about who is supporting the agreement. Is the Government of the Yukon supporting this initiative? The residents of the area are quite concerned that they're not being involved in the process, and that they don't even know what the process is at the present time. So, would the Government Leader take control of whatever process there is out there and inform the residents that they have nothing to be afraid of, that there will be a public process, that they will have an opportunity for full public input before any decision whatsoever is made to proceed in this direction?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I can assure the member that the area residents don't have anything to be afraid of and that there will be a full public process before any further definition of new governing structures takes place, but I have to say to the member that area residents around this territory do all kinds of things that I'm not in control of. They set up meetings and they initiate things constantly, on a regular basis, to further what they believe to be reasonable objectives. I cannot, and I should not, Mr. Speaker, insert myself into every plan, every initiative, that somebody undertakes.
However, I can assure the residents of the area that, indeed, they don't have anything to be afraid of and, secondly, yes indeed, before any changes are made to governing structures the area residents absolutely will be involved.
Question re: Yukon Employees Union negotiations
Ms. Duncan: My question is for the Government Leader and it concerns the breakdown in contract negotiations with the Yukon Employees Union.
The NDP spring convention was protested this weekend by the union representing government workers. Workers are obviously upset at the lack of movement on their contract with this government.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP campaign literature promised to negotiate new collective agreements to reflect current labour conditions. Why has the NDP government allowed current labour conditions to reach a point where union members feel they have to protest an NDP convention to have their voices heard?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised at the question.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, the Member for Riverdale North has put out a press release already. I thought it was going to show up in Question Period today, because they very graciously provide us their conclusions in press releases before they even hit Question Period.
Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker, there is this unholy alliance between the union and a member who was most definitely a player in denying collective bargaining rights to the union membership.
In any case, the situation, as it currently is taking place, is simply that there is the union - in this case, the Public Service Alliance, or YEU - which is about to go to conciliation with the government as employer. We will bargain collectively with the employees in a respectful way. Sooner or later, there must be and there will be an agreement. I can't control the actions of all members of the union who may wish to want to make a point to the public that they think is worthy of making.
Ms. Duncan: Well, the point one of the union leaders made to the convention was to ask for the Government Leader's resignation. Would the Government Leader tell us what his response to that question was?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, indeed, I was there. I don't remember seeing the member there, but the reporting was correct. There was a member who asked for my resignation. I indicated - not at the time, because there wasn't an opportunity at the time - on a number of occasions during the convention that it is important that the government balances the various needs around the territory and, certainly, respect for public servants is one need that the government is indeed addressing. It is very much a balancing act. We are going to do it in a respectful way, respecting not only our own employees, but also people around the territory and the needs that they express to us, as well.
Ms. Duncan: The union leader said, in a newspaper article last week, that he was insulted that the NDP has not lived up to their commitment to fully rescind the wage rollback legislation. The union believes that that includes returning the lost two percent. They feel betrayed by this government.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP recently concluded negotiations with the Yukon Teachers Association and, judging by their comments after the settlement, for example, and I quote, "The NDP were out at the front of it." - referring to the rollback - "They, too, fully expected to have the rollback rescinded." Clearly, both groups were left with the impression that they were getting the two percent back. Why did the NDP raise this expectation and do nothing to change that expectation, if they had no intention of meeting it?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, the NDP government did fully rescind the wage restraint bill. I believe it was approved even by the members in the opposition. I think it was unanimous, and we did not raise expectations in an unwarranted way, because in fact when I was asked the question during the campaign - all party leaders were asked during the campaign - on a number of occasions whether or not we were going to automatically restore the two percent, I said, "No," during the campaign and before the election day on a number of occasions.
Question re: Alcohol and drug abuse in Yukon
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services that concerns the extent of the Yukon drug problem. There's a tendency when Yukoners talk about alcohol and drug abuse in the territory to focus, invariably, on the alcohol side of it. There are statistics on how many litres of alcohol are consumed by Yukoners per capita, yet when it comes to the murky, grey world of drug abuse, there appears to be very little information or statistics available. Can the minister advise the House if his department has an estimate of the number of drug users in the territory, broken down by category - IV-drug users, cocaine, marijuana, hash and the like? Is there any information available which shows the extent of Yukon's drug abuse problem?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, Mr. Speaker, we do have a sense of the drug problem in the territory, and I can provide - but I don't have it here - the member with some details on that. What I will say is that, increasingly, we are finding problems with injectible drugs, and that manifests itself not only in terms of addictions issues but also in terms of related health problems.
I made some reference earlier to the difficulty that we're having with people particularly coming in with such things as hepatitis C related to injectible drugs, and it is becoming more and more of a concern.
Mr. Jenkins: It's a concern shared by this side of the House also, Mr. Speaker, so I believe it's very important that we tackle this rapidly expanding problem by starting with a data base. Can the minister explain why, in view of this obvious problem that he has enunciated upon, he's reduced the alcohol and drug services budget lower than last year's forecast by some eight percent and even lower than the 1996 actual expenditures? I hope he doesn't believe that by ignoring this serious problem it'll simply go away. Why has the budget been reduced in light of this recognition of the problem, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I thought that would be the kind of discussion we'd get into in terms of general debate on Health, but I can say we're refocussing a number of our efforts in this regard, and part of our work in realigning our drug and alcohol services was to address this issue. If one takes a look at what some of our efforts are in terms of detox, we're moving to more of a, I suppose, medical model detox to recognize some of the difficulties that individuals have with, in particular, drug-related problems.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, I certainly can't buy that, Mr. Speaker. It's very obvious - it's obvious to me and it's obvious to a lot of the people that I've spoken with - even though the minister doesn't recognize the problem, that we have a widespread abuse throughout the Yukon that is not being addressed by government.
This abuse is going down into our youth. It's present in our schools. Marijuana is a problem in our schools. Does the minister have any information about the extent of the drug abuse problem in our schools?
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I can tell the member that, having worked in education for a long period of time, and having worked with secondary students in particular, I'm very aware of the fact that there is a drug-use problem among our young people. My concern is increasingly finding young people moving from, I suppose, the softer drugs to some of the harder drugs. It's becoming a concern that cocaine, for example, is now becoming a drug of choice among young people.
As for drug abuse within schools, that's a hard one to nail down. I think we'd really have to have a sense from the individual schools as to the degrees that they find. What I can do is provide the member with some written information giving what we believe are some of the statistical basis for this, as well as what some of the programs that we are taking with our young people in that regard.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Speaker: Government bills.
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill No. 10: Third Reading
Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 10, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. McDonald.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 10, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1998-99, be now read a third time and do pass.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 10, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1998-99, be now read a third time and do pass.
Motion for third reading of Bill No. 10 agreed to
Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 10 has passed this House.
Speaker: We are now prepared to receive the Commissioner, in her capacity as Lieutenant Governor, to give assent to the bill which has passed this House.
Commissioner enters the Chamber
ASSENT TO BILL
Commissioner: Please be seated.
Speaker: Madam Commissioner, the Assembly has, at its present session, passed a certain bill to which, in the name and on behalf of the Assembly, I respectfully request your assent.
Clerk: Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 1998-99.
Commissioner: I hereby assent to the bill as enumerated by the Clerk.
Commissioner leaves the Chamber
Speaker: I will now call the House to order.
Hon. Mr. Harding: I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the members' wish to take a brief recess?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Chair: Fifteen minutes.
Recess
Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.
Chair's notification re absence of Deputy Chair
Before proceeding to Committee business today, I wish to advise members that in the absence of the Deputy Chair this week, I will, pursuant to section 902(3) of the Beauchesne, be calling upon Mr. Livingston, MLA for Lake Laberge, to take the chair of Committee from time to time.
Committee will now proceed to further review of the estimates.
Bill No. 9 - First Appropriation Act, 1998-99 - continued
Department of Community and Transportation Services - continued
Chair: Is there any further general debate?
I will now call Mr. Livingston to the chair.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Deputy Chair, I have tabled legislative returns, which I hope provide the information required by the members opposite that were asking for it. If it doesn't, then please ask for clarification. We will do everything that we possibly can to ensure that we work cooperatively together on this process.
I have a few issues which I'd like to read into the record for the members opposite. First I have a question which was raised by the Member for Klondike on March 26 on the replacement of the 400 cell system in the Dawson area. Certainly the rural electrification and the telecommunications policy can help in this area because access to the program is not limited to fixed service only. This policy allows the service providers to propose a service that meets the needs of the people in the area. This could be a fixed service or it could be a mobile service such as cell 800 or it could be a service that accommodates both fixed and mobile.
The government is taking part in the CRTC's hearing into issues surrounding service to high-cost areas. This includes the issue of a national telecommunications support fund, and hopefully when these proceedings are completed service providers will have a greater incentive to extend modern telecommunications systems into rural areas than they do today.
In very sparsely populated areas where a business case cannot be made for terrestrial services, existing satellite networks will offer competitive solutions, such as networks, our Canadian mobile satellite system and the upcoming system, such as Iridium and the Global Star.
Also in response to a question raised by the Member for Klondike, Mr. Jenkins - what are the time lines for the Whitehorse Airport runway extension study - the feasibility study, which is now being conducted by the transportation engineering branch, is expected to be completed for review by April 30, 1998. The study will provide preliminary construction cost estimates for the project. A preliminary engineering schedule study is scheduled for completion by the end of May 1998, and will include survey and geotechnical work.
Also in response to a question on March 26 on the government's involvement in radio and television distribution systems, the issue was will the Government of Yukon be maintaining the same number of radio and television installations and rebroadcasting facilities as it currently operates?
Well, C&TS maintains the 14 CBC-TV rebroadcast sites, six CBC-Radio rebroadcast sites and eight installations in remote highway camps. At this time there are no plans to change this at all.
Also, for the record, on the secondments to the State of Alaska, from the Member for Riverdale South: is C&TS considering doing any sort of exchanges or secondments with the State of Alaska? Well, the department has been exchanging information and knowledge with the State of Alaska through conferences and meetings. Secondments with Alaska have not taken place so far, but the department is prepared to give such opportunities serious consideration whenever and wherever mutually beneficial.
Those are the issues that I have to date from the members opposite.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Chair, the minister provided information - three legislative returns and three oral responses. The questions that I have outlined in the Blues from last Thursday - there were 17 questions that were going to be responded to or about which the minister was going to be providing more information.
So we've got 11 more to go, Mr. Chair, and I was very, very hopeful that the minister would be able to provide that information in a forthright manner, so that we can speed the business of the House.
If we could deal with the first legislative return, and that is with respect to mosquito control, and we go back to the Blues and Mr. Keenan's statement. It's on page 2573.
"But certainly, based on last year's experience, I can say that - well, if I could just re-direct you from the briefing note, it might be much simpler for me, certainly - the 1996 program cost for the communities that participated in both the 1996 and 1997 programs was $72,500; and the 1997 in-house cost was $54,600. And we showed a substantial savings of $17,900. Now, tender prices for 1997 far exceeded the allocated budget, resulting in the request for proposals being withdrawn and the program being conducted in house with available staff. We utilized the materials that were purchased directly from the factory."
It's interesting to note, Mr. Chair, that when we take the number of kilograms of larvicide that was purchased in each year, and the cost of applying it, overall we did less and it cost less. If you look back to 1996, there were 291 bags of material applied. Based on the total program cost of $72,500, it cost $249.14 per bag applied. Now in 1997, if all the 200 bags that were purchased from the manufacturer were applied by ground and air, it works out to $273 per bag applied. That's a 10-percent greater increase in cost, Mr. Chair.
And the minister has indicated that there was a cost savings. So, what is happening is that we're doing less work, and it's costing us more money to do less work.
If all 200 bags were applied in the 1997 program - and all of them were not; there were some bags that were not applied, and they were carried over to this year. So, we're not getting an accurate reflection from the minister or his department as to what is transpiring in this area.
Would the minister stand on his feet and give this House an undertaking that he is going to be bringing back accurate information that actually reflects the cost of applying a bag of larvicide? How many hectares are we servicing overall and treating? How many bags are we applying, and what is the cost? Can the minister undertake to do that?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, we have endeavoured to provide the member opposite with factual information, the best information that we have. Certainly that is the case in this response that has been provided to the hon. member. Certainly we must take into consideration, I'm sure, the cost of inflation, et cetera, of others.
But certainly I will go back to the department and raise the questions that have been raised - how many hectares of service per bag, how many bags, what is the actual cost, et cetera - and see if we can define the question a bit more. But certainly, I would state that therein would probably lie a certain proportion of the answer.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, it will certainly probably expedite the business of the House if the minister brought in his deputy minister and provided him with the answers in a more timely manner, because the minister doesn't know what he's talking about in a lot of these areas. He doesn't have an understanding of the responsibilities of his department, specifically in this area, and he's bringing back information that, while accurate, is skewed, so that it misrepresents what is actually going on. I'm looking for information that actually reflects -
Some Hon. Member: Point of order.
Point of order
Deputy Chair: Mr. Harding, on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Harding: The member has just accused the minister of misrepresenting the information. I think that is clearly unparliamentary.
Deputy Chair's ruling
Deputy Chair: On the point of order, this is a dispute between members as to the facts. It is not the responsibility of the Chair to make a ruling as to who is correct; therefore, there is not a point of order.
Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Nice try, Trevor.
Some Hon. Member: Point of order.
Point of order
Deputy Chair: Mr. Harding, on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Harding: Members should be referring to members by appropriate titles in the Legislature, in Committee debate and in this House and refrain from using my personal first name. I think that's clearly unparliamentary.
Deputy Chair's ruling
Deputy Chair: I would just remind members to refer to members opposite by their titles, rather than their names.
Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Can we get back to the issue before us, which was the issue of the larvicide application. Can the minister bring back accurate information?
Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)
Deputy Chair: Order please.
Mr. Jenkins: Can the minister undertake to bring back accurate information, please?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, the information that has been brought forth by the department is of an accurate nature. The member opposite has asked further for more detail in the questions. As I've said in my previous response, I will endeavour to oblige the hon. member.
Mr. Jenkins: Of the 17 areas that the minister was going to bring back more information on, he provided information on three by legislative return and three orally here this afternoon, Mr. Chair. Can the minister advise when he's going to provide the additional information that he agreed to?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, we will provide the information to the member as it is available. As the Member for Klondike is aware of the workings of government, the staff is working at this time so certainly it will be done at the soonest.
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, I can't accept the minister's response. It's going to do no good to facilitate the quick movement of this bill through the House. We have agreed to provide information in a timely manner and the minister is not doing so. So, I need more of a commitment from the minister than he'll provide it when it becomes available. Can the minister undertake to agree to provide the information at least on the next sitting day for the areas that have been outlined, Mr. Chair?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, as the information becomes available it will be provided to the member, and in that manner it will become available and certainly in a very timely manner. We will endeavour to do our very, very best to get the information to the member, as per the request, in such a fashion that it will not impede and certainly I do not expect it to impede.
As to the member opposite alluding that if the deputy minister were here that he would have it at his fingertips, that is certainly not the case and certainly this is an answer that will justify that case because it is a departmental initiative and the department is working forward to make the information available - whatever information the member opposite wants - as it becomes available in a very timely manner.
Mr. Jenkins: Let the record reflect that, once again, the minister is not providing information in a timely manner. He's refused to do that. He says, "When it becomes available."
If we could deal with the second legislative return the minister tabled, and it's concerning the RERC review that is necessary before they can go to that board, the minister indicated that there is no funding available for undertaking the ice effect study. When does the minister envision this program to be beginning, and what are the time lines for it? He notes in the legislative return that the screening report will not be submitted to RERC until the remaining technical work is done and stakeholders' consultation is complete.
Could the minister advise what the time lines are for undertaking the ice study and the stakeholders consultation?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, we will not, as it says in the legislative return, as there is no funding in the 1998-99 budget for the undertaking of this study. I do not believe that we will be moving forward with this study until there's been a conscious effort as to moving forward with the development of the bridge.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, there is, and there has been, a conscious effort moving forward with the development of this bridge, and the minister knows full well that there has been. There have been initial studies undertaken and completed. The preliminary design, preliminary consultation with the area residents and the fish habitat study, have all been completed.
Would the minister indicate to the House why the progress on this project has stopped? Is it for the same reasons that the Minister of Education has stopped the school in Dawson City - she doesn't have a commitment to the education system? What's the minister's excuse, Mr. Chair?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, the minister doesn't have an excuse. The minister has certain direction that he will follow through. There has not been a conscious effort to delay. Neither has there been a conscious decision made regarding the development of the bridge across the Yukon River near Dawson. Now, I know that certainly the Member for Klondike is very supportive of the initiative of a bridge, and others are also. But certainly, at this point in time, we are not going to be building a multi-million dollar bridge. Our priorities are, at this point in time, to continue with health and education, and we will not get into a taxing burden upon people to support bridge. But, certainly, in a timely and deliberate and thoughtful manner, we will be making these decisions.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, I'm not asking the minister to make a commitment here to build a bridge. I'm asking the minister to follow through on a commitment made by previous governments that they will do all the preliminary assessment work and the evaluations necessary so that we would have in place everything that is required to go to RERC and get the necessary approvals to construct the bridge. If we don't start with the process now, it just puts the time lines down the road for the eventual construction in another five or six or seven years. And I hope the minister understands that.
Now, I'm hoping the minister will see his way clear to follow through on commitments to complete these necessary studies. Can the minister undertake to do that?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, as I said, they are not in the 1998-99 budget, but the Finance minister - the Government Leader - in his wisdom, does partake in community tours and does listen to the people and incorporate his best to the ability of the government overall to move forward. So, there certainly is a process for such, and I would certainly say to the member opposite to work with the process and to work with me to ensure whatever we can do on behalf of government in total so that we can do that in total. So, certainly, with active lobbying from the member opposite and with the direction that would likely be coming from the community, these are issues which focus on it. But, as I have said, at this point in time, I do realize that the member opposite is not speaking for a commitment to the bridge but a commitment to the process leading up to the development of a bridge.
Certainl,y money is not in the budget, but certainly we will take it into consideration, and I hope the member opposite does not take offence, as he has in the past, to the word "consideration," because it is not totally my decision, but certainly a decision that we will all have to collaborate and work on to find the best way.
Mr. Jenkins: On the subject of the bridge, has the minister asked his department to review the potential for a private enterprise-government partnership on the construction of same, similar to the causeway to Prince Edward Island? Is this avenue being explored, or is it being considered for being explored?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, that is a question I feel would be better directed to the Minister of Finance, and the proper opportunity would be during the Question Period or Finance debate.
Mr. Jenkins: So here we have the Yukon Territory today. There's one operating mine; we're heading for an all-time high in unemployment; there's very little capital works underway; and the government is not even planning for any future capital civic works here in Yukon. It's a shameful situation to be in, and the minister bears responsibility.
Here he has a whole engineering staff sitting idly by. We're scrambling for work to keep the engineering staff in place. We're exploring avenues of utilizing this engineering staff in projects with Public Works Canada and British Columbia. We're probably going to be exploring secondments into Alaska, and all other things, but we're not even looking right in our own back yard to see what we can do to enhance the infrastructure.
This is an area - the necessary reports and studies leading up to a submission to RERC before one can undertake a major capital project, like a bridge across the Yukon River in Dawson. What's the government's policy on these issues? Could the minister elaborate as to how he envisions his department working in this area? Where do the guidelines come from to undertake any projects, and what projects of this nature are underway that are being studied and reviewed by his department? Perhaps the minister has some other areas that he's exploring that we're not aware of.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly we do not surround policy for the identification of capital projects. It is certainly a political decision, and politicians will make those decisions. We will certainly make those decisions in terms of what is right for the Yukon. I must say that, in spite of the decline in revenues, we're creating jobs, and we're doing that by putting more than $70 million back into the economy in capital spending. We're still protecting important health services and education, and we're doing it without increasing taxes or imposing health care fees. Certainly, with much less to spend, we're trying to spend smarter.
I do not believe that the member opposite can say anywhere that we are looking to say, "Never a bridge," but we are certainly trying to get there in a thoughtful and deliberate manner and we will continue to do that. We recognize the need that we must break the boom-and-bust cycle, and we are going to do that. How are we doing that? Through a more diversified economy.
Now, the member opposite is going to stand up and say we're not, but we are. We're working with the business communities, we're working with communities at large, we're working with the First Nations and labour and we're working with the environmental community. We're doing it to encourage development that is financially and environmentally sustainable.
Mr. Jenkins: Sounds like bunk; and it is bunk.
I guess if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's got to be a duck. We're not going to get any further on this area with the minister, because he's refusing to answer, but it's safe to say that his government's thrust as far as job creation goes is that you had better have a government job or a government contract; otherwise, you had better be in line for unemployment insurance benefits and get a cheque from the EI people. Failing that, come and see us for welfare.
So you can work on one of these three areas. That seems to be the three-prong thrust of this government. Otherwise, everything else is coming to a screaming halt here in the Yukon, Mr. Chair.
The minister has to assume a lot of responsibility for it, because they're not even exploring any initiatives that will lead to work down the road.
Enough said on that area.
The third legislative return deals with the computer glitches, and that information appears to be reasonable and quite succinct. I thank the minister for same.
Getting into the verbal questions or the verbal responses that the minister offered, could the minister please elaborate on the 400 cell system in the Dawson area that presently exists? That'll eventually fall into disrepair and be decommissioned. How does he envision collecting from the mobile users who are located in other parts of the Yukon that use the cell system and who work in Dawson for certain times of the year and want to access the cell in that area? How does he envision getting them involved in a replacement program and anteing up for the capital costs, Mr. Chair?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: If I walk like a duck and talk like a duck and look like a duck, I guess that must be the reason therein that I'm trying to get plucked like a duck. Certainly, as the fresh-plucked duck, I can say, "How do we envision doing it?" That is exactly what we've done. We've laid out the process and we're going to continue to work within the process for the people. We've established a process that the people can work within so I very much encourage the people.
If the member opposite knows of how we could work together with those folks and to provide direction to those folks within the process who would like the process to be furthered, certainly, my department would be more than willing to work with him. If the Member for Klondike could help facilitate that with my department on behalf of the 400 cell users, then we can start to get down to using the process and that's definitely what it's for.
Mr. Jenkins: Let the record reflect that once again the minister has failed to answer the question. So for the benefit of the minister, let's try it once more. In Dawson there exists a 400 cell system. Users now have come to rely on the 800 cell system in the Whitehorse area. It is being expanded upon quite rapidly. Virtually everyone who comes up north utilizes the 800 cell system. They get to Dawson City and they can't access the cell phone system. There are a lot of people who are mobile users. The policy that the minister just brought forward envisions a downloading of the charge to these users.
How does the minister envision collecting from those cell phone users who are mobile? They might reside in the Whitehorse area. They might reside somewhere else. But how do you access them for a capital charge?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: That is a question that I'll have to refer to our communications department and get back to the member opposite.
Mr. Jenkins: Once again, the minister is offering another legislative return on this subject. I think that's where we're leading, once again, Mr. Chair. Is that what the minister is saying?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: There are very many ways to communicate, Mr. Chair. Certainly, we can communicate within a condescending manner. It certainly seems to be a practised manner. We can communicate in a friendly forthright manner. We can talk, we can get information, we can read it into the record, we can exchange information in the hallway. So certainly I will get the information to the member opposite in a very expedient manner, if I may say so as such. Certainly, I'll get it to him, as it becomes available, in a timely manner. That is certainly what I'll do, on behalf of my department.
Mr. Jenkins: I think what we're looking for on this side of the House is for the minister to understand the issues he is responsible for within his department and to either have somebody alongside of him who can show him in his briefing notes where this information is contained - he can read it verbatim - or he can waste the time of the House, and his department's time, by going back and researching the information and providing a legislative return.
Yes, there are many ways of communicating. The best ways of communicating are for the minister to stand on his feet and answer the questions but, in order to do that, the minister must have an understanding of what he is charged with the responsibility for, and that does not appear to be the case.
So we don't need all this rhetoric from the minister about the ways of communicating. All we need is for the minister to know his job and his areas of responsibility and answer the questions when he is asked the questions.
So, I will accept that we are now being offered another legislative return on this subject.
With respect to the Whitehorse irport runway extension, we were given information of the time lines for the initial study as being April 30 and the engineering as being May 31. What does the minister envision occurring after the engineering and the reports are done? Where are we going to be heading from there, and what are the time lines for a decision being made as to whether we can undertake this project this period and go out to tender to undertake this contract, Mr. Chair?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, if I may say that, having been charged with the responsibility, and the responsibility is to work within the realm of my two departments, which I do, I certainly attempt to understand most of the issues, but certainly, Mr. Chair, I am not charged with understanding every bit of detail. There are certain trust factors and direction factors that are given and used between myself and my department, and it will continue to be so.
I would like to point out for the record, though, that we must become consistent here. So, when I do bring somebody in to do just what the member opposite has asked me to do, I am called ignorant. I am told that I do not have the proper ministerial information.
Some Hon. Member: Point of order.
Point of order
Deputy Chair: Mr. Jenkins, on a point of order.
Mr. Jenkins: Point of order. There is no indication from this side of the House that the minister was called "ignorant." I am sorry, Mr. Chair. That has never been the case.
Deputy
Chair's ruling
Deputy Chair: I did not hear the previous member speaking use the word "ignorant," and I just ask members to continue the debate.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I certainly have a memory of being abused many times in this House and, if the word "ignorant" was never raised, then certainly other words were alluded to. Certainly, Mr. Chair, I have suffered. I have been called the absolute worst and the most uninformed C&TS minister ever and then smoke was blown up someone else. Mr. Chair, I am certainly used to this, and I guess I will just have to continue to get used to it.
I would just like to say that Committee of the Whole is for general policy debate and if the member opposite would like technical, detailed information, we will provide that. That detailed information will be provided as we proceed through the line-by-line debate.
The question that the Member for Klondike was asking for, certainly the time frames, as they've been spoken to, are there and are out.
That is what's happening this fiscal year. There's certainly a process that we work within for the identification of or the prioritization of capital projects, or whatever we do within our budget, and we'll be following that process. Certainly, that is a process that is steered and guided by the Finance minister, or our Government Leader.
Mr. Jenkins: If I could take the minister back to the Whitehorse Airport runway extension, we have two time lines. After we've met the engineering report for May 31, what is going to happen after that date?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Completion for the preliminary engineering schedule design - or study, I guess I should say - is due for completion by the end of May. What happens after that is certainly going to follow within the process of developing the budget for the following fiscal year. If there is going to be any deviance from that, it is certainly up to the Finance minister and the Government Leader to speak to.
Mr. Jenkins: Will there be anything happening with respect to the Whitehorse Airport runway extension this fiscal year?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I'm certain the member opposite means the fiscal year that is coming up.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I'm terribly sorry for mixing apples and oranges here. It is something that we all get used to, I guess. For this fiscal year, certainly, it is within the budget - $70,000 is contained within the budget to look at the geotechnical costs and to do that work.
Mr. Jenkins: Will there be any work undertaken on the runway extension other than what the minister has indicated in these two studies? Is there going to be any work started this coming fiscal period, the fiscal period that we're debating here in the House today?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: As the Member for Faro said to the member opposite, it's not in the budget, and it certainly isn't, so we are debating the issues that are in front of us at this point in time.
Mr. Jenkins: Does the minister hope to do something with construction and extending the airport runway this year, if funds become available?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: My hopes are certainly not the only thing that is taken into consideration as to the development of a budget, or within the budget process. I believe the member opposite knows that if this government did not support it, we wouldn't have put the dollars in. We have put $70,000 in to look at the extension and, right now, we're doing the preliminary engineering costs, and the time line for that is by the end of May. We will be considering what comes from the engineering study and looking at how and when is best to move on the recommendations that would come.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, the minister once again let the record show that he's failed to answer the question. The question is, simply stated: if funds become available in this budget period that we are debating here today, is it the minister's desire, or will he see work started on the runway extension?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, we all hope and we all aspire for many things in our lives and we certainly have processes, hopefully, to follow a proper decision-making process, and we're going to follow that process and continue to follow that process. This year we are debating this year's current budget - we're coming up into the next fiscal year, which is in just a couple of days - and I would like to focus on that. We will follow the process that has been established as to what we want to do and how it will incorporate into and enhance the economy, et cetera, et cetera. But at this point in time, I'm here to debate this year's budget and I would like to focus on it as such.
Thank you.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, we haven't got very far with responses on any of the questions today, so the last issue that the minister gave a verbal response to was the issue of radio and TV stations here in the Yukon that are operated by the Government of Yukon.
My question to the minister is this: in light of the recent decision of Northwestel to get out of the cable business in some of the remote areas where they had sought and obtained CRTC approval to cable, there appears that there will be a demand for additional services. What is the government's policy in this regard, Mr. Chair?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, I do believe I answered that question last week. Certainly, the territorial government definitely does not have a policy for when they become vacant as such, but we are not going to be walking in to fill the field - if I may put it in that manner.
Mr. Jenkins: But is the minister stating here today that he doesn't have a policy one way or the other? What's the minister actually stating to the question? What's his response?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: No.
Mr. Jenkins: Does the government have a policy in this regard, and if they do, what is the policy? Is the minister's response, "No"?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: No, we do not have a policy as outlined in my policy book, Mr. Chair. I have answered the question - I do believe last week on the last day - and I've now answered the question one more time. No, we do not have a policy, and certainly we will not be filling the field. There are many very economical TV dishes out at this point in time, and they are certainly led by the private sector. So, I would suggest that the member would be stating that we should be moving in where the private sector is taking over.
Mrs. Edelman: A few minutes ago, the minister referred to the fact that C&TS would be quite amenable to sending secondments over to Alaska, if that was the way it was going to go, or maybe even mutual exchanges, I'm not too sure. I just wanted to say thank you for taking a look at that. It makes a lot of sense. We have a lot in common with Alaska.
My next question is a policy question around capital projects. The minister just said that decisions about capital projects will be made on a political basis. Good governance talks about people being fair and consistent. Is it this government's policy to make capital project decisions on a political basis, instead of being fair and consistent and looking at issues as they are needed? For example, if the bridge is falling down, it has to be replaced. You have to look at preventive maintenance, you have to look at O&M maintenance - regular maintenance - and a lot of times that comes under capital.
I'm a little concerned, because if these decisions are being made on a purely political basis, that means that some Yukoners are going to lose out every time. The people of my riding, for example, are not represented by the government in power. Does this mean that political decisions are going to dictate and that there's no chance that the people in my riding will get capital projects?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, if I misled the member opposite in my answer. Certainly, the politicians will make the decisions, but as the member opposite knows, the departments have five-year capital plans. We take all the information that is readily available to us. Some of it is current information; some of it's historical information as to where the departments are going and identification of the infrastructure needs of the territory. Certainly, I think that a good case is the Klondike riding, in what this government is trying to do.
We think of all ridings and we look to have a government for the complete territory. There are 17 seats in the Legislature and we are certainly going to represent all 17 seats to the best that we can for all folks. So, forgive me if I've misled the member opposite; that is certainly not what I intended.
Mrs. Edelman: That's good to hear, because it's certainly not a good policy.
The territorial government recently had airports devolved to them, and one of those airports was the Watson Lake Airport. The Watson Lake Airport had this elderly firetruck that was responsible for taking care of air emergencies out by the airport. That truck, I understand, was apparently outfitted with the equipment necessary to fight that type of fire, which would be a plane crashing, that sort of thing, or hitting something else, I guess.
Now, the Town of Watson Lake got that firetruck given to them for a dollar. I understand they've now turned it over and have gotten rid of it. They have firefighting equipment within the town, but it is not the type of equipment that is suitable for fighting airport fires. Is it this government's policy, when they have airports devolved to them, to provide adequate fire protection?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: It is part of the devolution process, and part of our governance, to certainly ensure that we have protective fire spaces through the devolution process for the airports. We also look to use our firetrucks in different places, so we shuffled them around from here and there because, as the Yukon grows, there are different needs, geographically, I guess I can say, and we attempt to move them around and to make best use of them.
As it would be one of the principles that I'm speaking from - not detailed knowledge that's contained within the devolution process - I would know that one of the principles would be that we move forward as per the agreement.
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, that's a very interesting discussion about the shuffling of firetrucks. However, this is a very meat-and-potatoes kind of issue - like, actually, just about everything in C&TS.
Now, you can't use the same type of firefighting equipment on air fuel as you do, say, on a house burning down. You need different types of firefighting equipment, and that is not available at the Watson Lake Airport. I'm wondering if the minister will at least review what firefighting equipment is available, particularly at the rural airports, and make an effort to make sure that that type of equipment is available, particularly at the Watson Lake Airport.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Thank you very much for the clarification of the question. Certainly, I will get the department to look into it and ensure that the terms of the devolution agreement have been lived up to and see if there is satisfactory firefighting equipment that is specific to the fighting of a fire on an airfield with an airplane.
Mrs. Edelman:
Mr. Chair, the issue of Watson Lake is probably not just an issue for Watson Lake. I would suspect that it would be timely and wise, considering that we just had the airports devolved to us, to look at that sort of firefighting equipment across the Yukon. I wonder if the minister - he probably has that information from his department and it is available to him - could provide that information to this side of House at his convenience, providing that is very conveniently in the very near future.
With that in mind, I also wanted to talk to the minister about landfills. Now, I'm speaking to you from the Echo, which is the newspaper of Haines Junction. This is the April 1998 edition, and there's quite an interesting discussion in it about landfills, and of course garbage is always a fun topic.
One of the statements made - and it doesn't say who has written this, so it's a little unclear - it says, "No Yukon landfill has a totally impervious liner." Now I know that the liner at the Whitehorse sewage lagoon, for example, is impervious and I'm wondering, is this the Yukon-wide policy? What's happening with the liner and it is going to be the policy in the future to provide impervious liners when we're developing new cells at the various landfill sites across the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly Mr. Chair, now that I understand what the impervious liner is and means, I can certainly talk a little bit about it. Certainly I concur, talking about garbage or landfill - however we would term it - is fun.
But certainly Renewable Resources, at this point in time, led by the Minister of Renewable Resources, is looking at doing a solid waste study, and that is going to be incorporated. We're looking at all sorts of different options that might be able to come out and to work with them and, of course, we'll be having these issues discussed with communities as we go through the rural services consultation for the development of the next policies. These are all issues that we will be coming back to and the department will be sitting down and sorting out all issues that pertain to rural services, of which this is certainly one.
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, the issue of impervious liners is actually a policy decision. The first thing I wanted to know is that the statement about no Yukon landfill has a totally impervious liner - I wouldn't mind knowing from the department whether or not that's true.
And also whether it's C&TS's policy now, let alone in the future, to line new cells at landfills with impervious liners. Now we're talking about keeping up with technology; we're not talking about recycling here. We're talking about just basic meat-and-potatoes construction of landfill sites. Is the department now aiming toward these impervious liners in the development of new cells?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: As to the impervious liners in the Yukon now, certainly that is something that I will have to get back to the member opposite on, and we'll have to do some consulting, certainly, with the municipalities that have control over their own waste. We will endeavour to do that and get the answer back to the member opposite in a timely manner.
We're still investigating how to handle garbage, and we'll do it in a manner that's consistent with the Yukon residents' wishes. We're doing this, as I said, through the rural services policy.
There are lots of discussions on rural service policy, through consultation, pertaining to garbage, coming up. So, we're in the process of investigating it and working through. As I said, Renewable Resources is certainly working with us through their air quality standards, and so on. I will get the information that the member asked for. Those are some of the processes that we're going through now to look at how to handle it and work with the dilemma we're in.
Mrs. Edelman: I appreciate that the department is also going to look toward municipalities and see what their practices with impervious liners are or are not, although the vast majority of landfills - actually, they're dumps - are run by C&TS in the Yukon.
Now, also, in this same newspaper, if you can call it that, they talk about guidelines: "... similar to enforceable guidelines elsewhere in Canada will cause the cost of garbage disposal to increase." They're talking here of different ways of disposing of waste.
I wonder, in this next budget, if the department is going to be listening to the consultations and enacting any of the guidelines coming in from Renewable Resources, because it is C&TS that runs most of the landfills in the Yukon. Has there been any extra money budgeted in this budget to look at the increasing costs of disposing of waste in the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Not specifically at this point in time - to the member opposite - has that arisen, and no, there are no extra dollars in here, but we're going to be working with all aspects, looking at all aspects, to see the costs and how to bring the costs down and work wisely within the dollars that we do have.
So it's an ongoing process. Certainly the member opposite will be offered a complete briefing of process and recommendations. I would assume, and probably am correct in the assumption, that the member opposite is taking part in some of the discussion and consultation to put forth the thoughts that the member opposite would have.
So, specifically, no, there is no new money identified, but certainly it's a challenge and we're waiting to look at the recommendations from the people as they come forth.
Mrs. Edelman: There's another C&TS issue in the City of Whitehorse, and it speaks to the people living in the Shipyards and Sleepy Hollow area who are going to be moved. I'm wondering, what is the policy on this government on consultations for when you're moving people or when you're making large changes?
The reason I say that is I see there's $294,000 allocated for this particular line item, but I don't see any money put aside for consultations. What is the normal amount of money that the department sets aside for consultations, and is there some sort of formula that the government uses - you know, if there are 50 people that you're going to have to move, it's $5 a head? What is it that the department covers in consultations? Is it the cost of consultants? Is it the cost of the rental of a hall? Is it the cost of doughnuts - coffee? What does the department pay for, in terms of consultations, and how much is usually budgeted?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: As to the exact formula used, as per is there a cost per consultation or increment built in to the budget for consultation, I think not, but I would assume that it is built in to the work of the technical people - the bureaucrats, if you will. That is a part of their job.
In the case of the waterfront residents, we're looking at this on a case-by-case basis so that we might be able to work with the people who are affected, so as to make less of a negative impact on their lives. As the member opposite knows, they are in varying degrees of age, health, et cetera. So it's a case-by-case basis, but specifically, as to the nature of the question regarding is there an increment in the budget specifically, or part of a formula specifically for consultation, that is something I would have to get from the department to provide an accurate answer.
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, am I then to understand that the minister will get back to me with specific figures about the cost of, specifically, the consultation in Whitehorse on the people in the Shipyards and Sleepy Hollow?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: If the member opposite would appreciate just focusing on just the waterfront residents - or the Shipyards or Sleepy Hollow or Whiskey Flats, as we used to call them - we've been around forever. Well, we're showing our age, you know. Certainly, I will focus on just that portion.
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, some of us are showing our age.
As well as the generals, if the minister could please provide a general statement about what sort of costs are covered in consultations by the department, I would appreciate that information as well.
Other issues that keep coming up are the issues around emergency measures. There are a number of people - probably a good 1,000 people - across the Yukon who take volunteer positions with the Emergency Measures Organization of the Yukon, and those are people in search and rescue, and they are in the Red Cross and a variety of different areas. And those people are recognized usually in the volunteer picnic every year down at Rotary Park, but for people particularly in the communities, there is very, very little recognition. Of course, this is really brought to mind when we speak about Ida McCormick, for example. I attended, I think, six workshops and Ida McCormick was there every single time, and there was never any recognition of the good work that she did here, and it was all volunteer, and I know it cost her a pretty penny every time that she came into those workshops.
Would the minister consider getting an annual report to the Legislature - maybe a recognition of some of those volunteers here in this Legislature - about the good volunteer work that they do? I know that some people in some of the communities have been doing it for over 20 years, and I don't know if it would really hurt to at least recognize that type of volunteerism. Lord knows that we're going to need those people if there is ever an earthquake or a major disaster in the Yukon beyond the normal floods that we get on an almost yearly basis.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, I think the member opposite has a very good point on the nature of volunteerism and how it works out with all folks that can dedicate in some cases a small part and in other cases a very large part of their lives to the social fabric of the Yukon, making it that much stronger. To recognize volunteerism is, I think, our duty as a government. All members should recognize volunteerism, no matter what riding or where we come from in rural Yukon. It's those kinds of people, who work selflessly for others, who are going to be recognized when they depart this world. Certainly, that is written into the scriptures, but I don't know if it's written in our scriptures. Certainly, I will endeavour to ensure that folks are recognized for good community work. I thank you for bringing that suggestion forward.
Mr. McRobb: The Member for Riverdale South referred to the Haines Junction Treadmill on the dump issue. I would like to encourage all members of this Legislature to read this community newsletter, which is full of good information and brings us up to date on events in the Haines Junction area, as well as the Echo, which is a monthly production. The Treadmill is also available on the Internet off the Yukon website for those with computer Internet access.
However, I don't have to exclusively rely on newsletters for my information, because of the contact I have with people in the communities, including Haines Junction, but I can say that people there are very happy now that the dump will finally be moved. Many people have felt that it has attracted bears, as well as discouraged tourism in the area, since occasionally there is a fire at the dump that drifts over into the highway and people catch this unpleasant odour as they enter the community. This really gives them an incorrect perception of such a beautiful community.
I'd like to ask the minister if he knows when this dump may be relocated?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Thank you very much for the commercial pause brought forward by the Member for Kluane. When is the dump going to be relocated? Certainly, that is something that I do not have exactly right here, but it is certainly something that I will have to get back to. But, certainly, I'd like to let the Member for Kluane know that it is an initiative that lies within the muncipality's direction.
Thank you.
Mr. McRobb: Thank you for that answer. I would like to also express my appreciation for this departmental budget. I know there are many people in the Kluane riding who appreciate many of the undertakings in this year's budget and, as we all know, there are several communities in the riding and it seems that there is something there for each and every one of them.
In fact, just about a week ago, I attended a pre-annual general meeting in Mendenhall subdivision and one of the main concerns there was telephone access and access to electricity. I've already spoken to some residents of Mendenhall about the rural electrification/telephone program announced by the minister today and they are extremely happy that this new program could include them as candidates for amortized payments on independent electrical systems and they are just, once again, elated that this program includes such things for them.
I've also talked to people in Beaver Creek who are very happy about some of the capital projects, the renovation of the visitor reception centre, the nursing station and so on. I've talked to people in the Destruction Bay area, including the Kluane First Nation, who are very happy about the work that will be done on the sewage lagoon.
I also took the occasion to stop and talk to some of the highway lodge owners, especially after the leader of the official opposition claimed he was talking in one of the coffee shops. Well, Mr. Chair, I undertook to travel out there the next day to just see for myself what they were saying and it was quite surprising, I wasn't able to locate the coffee shop he was referring to. Maybe it doesn't exist.
Maybe it wasn't the coffee shop at all. I'm not quite sure on that one. Anyway, this RETP, as I understand it, could also provide funding for some of the highway lodge owners who wanted to get away from their diesel generators to independent power systems. So there's something in this budget for them, as well, Mr. Chair.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Deputy Chair: Let the member complete his comments.
Mr. McRobb: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Member for Klondike, I guess he can dish it out, but he can't take it. We spend days and days in here listening to him, but -
Deputy Chair: Order please. Would the member keep to the topic.
Mr. McRobb: Thank you. Also, Mr. Chair, we heard about the situation in the Ibex community, with the council there looking for a place to meet. I discussed this matter with the minister and I'm satisfied the department is taking whatever action is required to resolve this issue, and the people there are looking forward to a resolution of it, as well.
I would just like to summate by thanking the minister for bringing forward such a thoughtful budget that seemingly has something for everyone, including those in Dawson City, I might add. It's something that, so far, I've heard from Yukoners that they all appreciate. The only negativity I've heard, Mr. Chair, quite frankly, is from some members of the opposition - and maybe their friends, the cartoonist in the local paper. They're the only ones I've heard any negativity from at all.
Mr. Jenkins: Let's get back to the issue at hand, and that's debating the budget and not listening to the rhetoric from the Member for Kluane.
If we could just explore with the minister some of the issues for which the answers were somewhat skewed, after I had a chance to review Hansard.
If I could take the minister back to the discussion we had with respect to the airports and the CARS situation, the minister indicated, on page 74 of the Blues, "I will get a briefing from my department and will be able to report further to the House." Could the minister report further to the House with respect to the information that he obtained from his department after he had the briefing on CARS, please?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I have not yet been able to have a briefing from the department on CARS, specifically, but if the member would like to formulate that into a question at this point in time, it would be much appreciated.
Mr. Jenkins: As I suspected, Mr. Chair, the minister doesn't have an understanding of the issue. We have a couple more questions on this side of the House dealing with CARS.
At the present time in rural Yukon, the CAR stations operate from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and they close. A lot of the traffic that is coming our way - Dawson City, Watson Lake and along the Alcan Highway - occurs after the closure of the CAR stations. What steps is the minister taking to keep the CAR stations open longer in the day, at least until legal darkness, in most of these areas?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, as I have said it and will reiterate, NavCanada and the territorial government are currently negotiating a new contract to replace the old contract. Certainly the Yukon government is seeking the additional funding and the scheduling flexibility to meet the local user needs.
Now, I know that the Member for Klondike suggested that there is much more than just local user needs, and I had attempted to bring a level of comfort to the Member for Klondike to say that we would be looking to have an understanding from the member opposite of all the users. So, certainly, we're going to look at that, but at this point in time, we are negotiating with them for the flexibility of more hours based on the needs that have arisen.
Mr. Jenkins: Is the minister aware that local flights originating and terminating after the CAR stations close, if they're on a company note, are not recorded, and the movements are not recognized by the statistic-keeping bureau of the government? Is the minister aware of that?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: My department is charged with the responsibility of identifying the needs of the community and to have meetings with the stakeholders and the folks who are affected by the needs, and that would be one of the issues that the department is very, very well-aware of.
I'm charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the department does those things, and the department is doing those initiatives. I must say again, though, that we're negotiating a new contract. We're doing it with NavCan to ensure that we have additional funding and schedule flexibility that has been identified and arising from stakeholder consultation, talking with folks and the local user needs.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, let the record once again reflect that the minister doesn't really have an understanding of the information that he's giving in the House and is just deferring it back to his department. I'm very, very disappointed.
At issue is what drives the need to keep the CARS operating longer hours. It's the number of movements. Unless there is an accurate way of knowing how many aircraft movements occur, especially when they originate and terminate at the same airport after CARS is closed - and a lot of operators operate on a company note. So that information doesn't even go into the system. So according to whomever is keeping track of the stats, that flight didn't start or stop, so there's no need to provide those additional services. So we're in a catch-22, Mr. Chair, and the minister just passes the buck on to his department.
The other issue that arises with the closure of the CAR station at three o'clock in the afternoon is NavCanada's position that they want to decommission ARCALs at a number of airports throughout the Yukon. What is the government's policy in this regard, Mr. Chair?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I'll ask the member opposite to repeat the decommissioning and, I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand the last portion.
Mr. Jenkins: With the closure of CAR stations at three o'clock in the afternoon, there's no one in attendance from three till dark. If they're a VFR airport, nothing can happen after dark. They're not legally allowed to land or take off after legal dark at a VFR airport unless you declare an emergency, Mr. Chair. But NavCanada is looking at decommissioning ARCALs at a number of Yukon airports. Now what is the government's policy in this regard, Mr. Chair?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, if I asked for the question to be clarified, it seems to have become longer.
Certainly, let me also say, though, that we are working with NavCan. We're working with NavCan to get assurances that quality will not be diminished and certainly we all know that they propose to terminate and reduce. But certainly it's impossible for them to do that without going out and talking to folks and that's exactly what they're doing.
So what are we currently doing? NavCan and the territorial government are currently negotiating new contracts. I don't have to reiterate that. It seems like I'm getting repetitive. Certainly, consultation with the industry and with the stakeholders is now taking place and the recommendations from that study will be presented to the NavCan board of directors and that will be taking place some time further during the summer.
So, we're carefully monitoring the progress of the study with the air carriers and the users to determine the potential impact on them and on the public. Certainly, safety in the user agreement is the primary objective to work on and to continue to bring forward and I do believe that I've satisfactorily answered the question for the member opposite. I do not see anything that could be brought forth now to further clarify. So, on that front, we're working with them. We're addressing the needs, looking at all needs and I'm sure that the dilemma that has been alluded to by the Member for Klondike has been taken into consideration and we'll certainly clarify that.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, what we've heard from the minister is a whole lot of gobbledegook. For the benefit of the House, can the minister stand on his feet and tell the House what is meant by ARCAL?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Gobbledegook? Is that parliamentary? I think I need a ruling from the Chair.
Deputy Chair's ruling
Deputy Chair: Gobbledegook is not considered to be unparliamentary.
Would the members please proceed?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Doggone it. That's unfortunate, because I understand that "doggon it" is. We are here not to make each other look bad or look silly. I think that's up to the individual to do that, and I must commend the member opposite for doing such a fine job. I'm here to work toward describing this budget and will continue to do so.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, what I have asked of the minister, Mr. Chair, is his department's decision on the policy on ARCALs. The minister doesn't even know what it stands for.
He walked all the way around the topic. He danced around the issue, stood on his feet and offered a whole lot of gobbledegook, but he didn't answer the question. For the benefit of the House, what does ARCAL stand for, Mr. Chair? If the minister doesn't know what it stands for, he certainly can't answer the question.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Let me say that, last year, I had suffered approximately three weeks of abuse, certainly, from that member opposite. The opposition critic for the third party certainly did not offer that type of abuse, and that is remembered and certainly looked after and warranted.
Now, it seems to me that I am back on my feet again, getting just this kind of abuse that I do not think is warranted. Certainly, if we could keep the level of debate where I do believe it should be and put the trust factor into people, then we might be able to work together a little more closely, and not go through weeks of abuse.
I do recall standing on my feet and working with the member opposite, repeating my answers, and continuing to do so, and even at times that the member had the answer in front of him, I said, "Go ahead," and it opened up another two hours of abuse.
Well, it certainly seems that this is the type of abuse that I'm going to have to be subjected to again and again and again. My department is working with much due diligence, working on and for and on behalf of the aviation industry, on behalf of the stakeholders, on behalf of the people that are used. And why are we doing it? So that we might provide safe conditions, better conditions for all people that are users of it, and I think that that is exactly what we're doing. But certainly, let the Yukon know that abuse and mismanagement of their time and of their House is happening, and it is happening once again, and all I can do is say that I expect it to continue happening.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Chair, as I understand our respective roles, I am here to ask questions of the minister of his department, and he is here to answer them. Now, the question is a question of policy dealing with airports, dealing with NavCanada's position that they are looking at decommissioning ARCALs at a number of Yukon airports.
Now, what is the government's position with respect to NavCanada's desires in this area? It is a safety issue. It is a very critical safety issue, Mr. Chair, and the minister doesn't even know what ARCAL stands for, so what is the government's policy on it? If the minister can't answer it, I guess we're in for another legislative return.
Now, if the minister can't answer it, and if he could please stand on his feet and say, "I'll bring back the response by way of legislative return," we can go on. I'm not looking to prolong this debate and dance all around and get the type of answers that we're receiving here in the House today that make no sense whatsoever, Mr. Chair.
Hon. Mr. Keenan: The present Yukon air navigation system is protected under Bill C-20, and that's the commercialization of the civil system. If NavCanada proposes to terminate or reduce designated services, implementation is only possible if the Yukon government, or users, do not reject the proposal, or if the proposal is approved by the Minister of Transport.
Now certainly the Yukon government is carefully monitoring the progress of this study with the air carriers and users to determine the potential impact on them and the public. Safety - if I may repeat - safety and user agreement are the primary objectives.
Now, NavCanada officials have stated that the Yukon community airdrome radio station program will not likely be affected by any major service changes; however, no assurances have been given regarding the Whitehorse air traffic control or such. So now we're into a different realm, but I do believe that the question has been answered for the Member for Klondike.
Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, but the question most certainly hasn't been answered by the minister. ARCAL - NavCanada is looking at decommissioning ARCALs at a number of rural Yukon airports. What is the government's position with respect to this decommissioning? It is a safety issue, Mr. Chair.
The minister doesn't even know what ARCALs are. If that's the case, fine. If he could bring back the information by way of legislative return, I'd be most happy, and we can get on with the debate. Will the minister undertake to provide that assurance?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: If I might say, I've answered what is the government's position. The government's position is to go out and to work with NavCan, to talk to the local users, the people who are affected by the decision, and to work with them therein. Now, I have said quite categorically, if I may say, that safety and user agreements are the primary objectives of this.
Now, do we have a position at this time? We are looking. We are talking. We are aspiring to get people's comments, because certainly, that is the nature of this government - to focus on what folks want. Now, I've said the primary objectives are safety and user agreements.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister advise the House what ARCAL stands for?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: No, I cannot stand up and advise the House at this time what it stands for, but I can certainly stand up and advise the House as to what we are doing with all safety projects, and what we are doing here with all folks for it. Now, I could certainly repeat my statement, and maybe I should, because we all know that the air navigation system is protected under Bill C-20. It's the commercialization of the civil system. If NavCan proposes to terminate or reduce designated services, how is implementation possible? Only if the Yukon government or users do not reject the proposal. So, what are we doing? We're going out and we're talking to people about what does it mean? What is it? What are the primary objectives? The primary objectives are the safety and user agreements. What is the government's position? That is the process that we use to get to the government's position.
Now, the member will not be satisfied with that answer. I certainly understand that he won't be satisfied with that answer. I've already said that I'm used to three weeks. I'm prepared for another three weeks of abuse, if I may say it as such. But, certainly, that is the government's position. We are working with folks, and we'll continue to work with folks. And what are the primary objectives? The primary objectives are the safety and user agreements. Those are exactly what the primary objectives are.
Now, as we are negotiating a new contract to replace the CARS agreement that was negotiated in 1989, the territorial government is seeking the additional funding, and we're seeking a schedule of flexibility so that we might be able to meet the local user needs.
Again, we are in a process to talk, support and to work with folks, whether they are local users - whoever the stakeholders are. Therein lies the answer.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, let the record reflect that the minister doesn't have an understanding of this very important safety issue. He's not prepared to go back to his department and inquire about it, which I hope he might do at the break, and come back with a response, and advise the House just what the government's policy is with respect to ARCALs, because it is a safety issue. It is a critical safety issue, especially when you look at emergency landings and landings by our carriers that are involved with medevacs. NAVCanada is not going to give the time of day to anyone who doesn't have even the basic understanding of what it stands for.
So, can the minister undertake to go to his department at the break and get a couple of minutes briefing so he can come back and advise the House on his government's policy with respect to ARCALs and what position they're going to take?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: I do believe, as the Member for Faro - pardon me, heaven forbid that I say he's from Faro. My God. Forgive me Faro - the Member for Klondike says that he's speaking to a fundamental component of a safety issue. I have said and have not alluded to the fact, I've quite categorically stated, that safety and user agreements are the primary objectives of this process. Those are our principles. That is what we're doing.
How are we doing it? We're doing it in consultation with stakeholders. We're doing it in consultation with the local users. That is exactly what we are doing and that is exactly what we will continue to do and our policy - because there is not a policy on our position at this time, because what we're doing is that we're coming with the position to those folks. It's not a policy. It's going to be done and garnered from that process and the primary objectives - well, I'm sure that the member opposite has heard me say that, so I won't even have to complete that.
But, certainly, safety is first and foremost there.
Mr. Jenkins: Well, if the minister had the basic understanding of what ARCALs stood for, he would know full well that if you were looking solely at safety, the decommissioning of the systems would be the preferred way to go. But, they are needed for medevacs and they are needed for emergency purposes and emergency landings, especially when the CAR stations are unmanned.
So, once again, I will ask the minister if he could bring back the information by way of a legislative return. Could he agree to provide that information, please?
Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, I said that safety is a primary issue and will continue to be so. The objective is the user agreement. The process is laid out. That is going to be one component of the process. Folks are going to bring it up. I am certainly assured that the member opposite, as he does have his private pilot's licence, will be bringing this up. I know that the member opposite has great concern for these issues and processes. We will work within the issues and processes.
The process is outlined. I've outlined the process, I do believe, on my feet in the last 15 to 20 minutes - it could even have been longer than that - but the member opposite is aware of the process and aware of the objectives of what we'd like to see. We will get the information to the member when it be