Speaker:   I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with prayers.

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

Tributes.

Hon. Mr. Lang:  As Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I would like to tribute GIS Day. The event today will involve a variety of displays and GIS professionals who are in the lobby of the Yukon territorial government building to provide information about their work. This computer software technology is used by people all over the world in business, education and government. This international event will promote a better understanding of the geography around the world.

Many students and other Yukoners will have the opportunity to visit the displays and learn how this technology can enhance their knowledge of worldwide geography.

I would like to thank all of the presenters, businesses that have displays and the many participants who have taken the time to visit this excellent display in the foyer of the Yukon territorial government building.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:   The official opposition would also like to pay tribute to GIS Day; unfortunately, the government House leader did not inform us this tribute would be called today, and we have nothing prepared.

Speaker:   Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Ms. Duncan:   I’d like to ask my colleagues in the Legislature to join me in welcoming the grade 11 Social Studies class from Porter Creek Secondary School. Their teachers are Mr. Wes Sullivan and Mr. Mike Toews, who are in the gallery. Please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature today. I’d also like to particularly welcome my nephew, Brandon Duncan, here.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would also like to welcome the grade 11 class to the Legislature today. It’s a pleasure to see them here. I hope they look at this as being something constructive and positive.

Speaker:  Are there any further introductions of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Mr. Cathers:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to move to full accrual accounting in order to ensure that the Taxpayer Protection Act will no longer be able to be circumvented.

Mr. Fairclough:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Yukon government’s outpatient travel subsidy for accommodation, meals and transportation is out of date and inadequate, and;

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to immediately increase outpatient subsidy for accommodation, meals and transportation to the standard government travel rates, to have the subsidy take effect from the first day of medical services and to provide advance funds to assist outpatients and their escorts where needed.

Mr. Hassard:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to work with First Nations, Parks Canada, communities and businesses along the Haines and north Alaska highways to improve access to Kluane National Park so as to lengthen visitors’ stay in the Yukon and thereby increase their spending in the Yukon.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a ministerial statement?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. McRobb:   One of the bright lights of the Yukon in recent years has been the good work coming out of the Energy Solutions Centre. The centre encourages and assists Yukoners to implement projects that will produce energy cost-savings and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The assistance is provided to households, businesses, communities, industry and First Nations.

The Energy Solutions Centre has also contributed to the winning of several awards by our territory. For instance, in Canada, the Yukon is at the head of its class in the annual report card issued by the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance.

Let’s start with a simple question to this energy minister who has now been briefed by the Premier. Does the minister agree that the centre does good work and must continue doing so?

Hon. Mr. Lang: The simple answer to that is yes.

Mr. McRobb:   That’s great, Mr. Speaker, finally a simple answer to a simple question.

The centre is wholly owned by the Yukon Development Corporation and is a joint initiative between Yukon Development Corporation and Natural Resources Canada. It’s a great way to bring federal dollars to the territory, which helps to build local energy knowledge and alternatives to our reliance on fossil fuels. In addition, it also encourages smart energy use through these various awards.

A senior aide within the Premier’s office said recently that he is embarrassed by the Energy Solutions Centre. He further said that the balance sheet was a disgrace and something had to be done about it.

What is this minister’s view about how the centre conducts its financial affairs?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   One thing this government doesn’t do is run the thing on who said, I said, he said. The Energy Solutions Centre is an important part of Yukon Energy Corporation/Yukon Development Corporation. It will continue being support for those two corporations.

As far as somebody in-house saying something, I have no reason to believe that.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, the senior aide was passing on the government’s message. It’s a real question with Yukoners: whom do we believe? The credibility of this government seems to be continuously in doubt.

Those comments came from a senior aide within the Premier’s office, and those comments related to privatization are not in isolation. The radar screen currently indicates several more incoming signals to the effect that the Yukon Party is moving to close down the centre.

What is this minister’s intention with respect to the centre’s future operations?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   It’s very important for us in this House to answer to the Yukon people. For us to stand up in this House and make insinuations about individuals who can’t defend themselves in this House, and situations, does nothing but harm Yukoners.

Let’s bring this to another level. The Yukon Energy Solutions Centre will stay. The Yukon Energy Corporation and Yukon Development Corporation are part and parcel of the Yukon fabric. For us to sit and listen to this name-calling when the individuals whom we are pointing fingers at have no position in this House to defend themselves is dead wrong.

All of us in this House should hang our heads for the representation we have shown in the last couple of days of pointing fingers at defenceless Yukoners who cannot stand up in this House and defend themselves. We do Yukoners a disfavour.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, talk about an overreaction, Mr. Speaker. If the minister can’t defend himself maybe he should take more on-camera lessons.

Last week the minister changed his story on why he sole sourced a one-year contract to his new $175,000 chair of the Yukon Development Corporation. On May 26 he appointed a full-time chair for purposes related to developing a corporate governance structure. Since then the minister has changed his story. He now says the full-time chair was appointed because of the Mayo-Dawson transmission cost overruns.

Last night I attended the annual general meeting of the Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation and the Energy Solutions Centre. At the meeting the chair said that nobody was aware of the cost overruns until the story broke this fall.

The minister needs to clear the air. Why did he sole source his contract back in May, and when did he first become aware of the huge cost overruns?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Speaker, I became aware of the problems that were existing on the Mayo-to-Dawson line approximately six months before I was elected. Anybody north of Crestview understood there was a problem with the line between Mayo and Dawson.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. He didn’t indicate why he sole sourced the contract in May. He didn’t indicate when he first became aware of the huge cost overrun. Now, last night’s meeting was chaired by none other than the $175,000 chair himself. At the end of the meeting, he concluded that these annual meetings were a good thing and he hoped we would all be back to see him again next year. But when the minister dished out this juicy one-year $175,000 sole-source contract for a full-time chair to develop a corporate governance structure, he said it would be for one year only. Mr. Speaker, the minister’s story seems to be changing again.

Could he tell this House: will the chair’s contract be extended beyond one year?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, Mr. Speaker, I remind the people opposite that, when we acquired the challenges of government last December, we acquired the challenges of the line between Mayo and Dawson. We’ve addressed those challenges by working with a full-time chair and the contractors, and today, Mr. Speaker, there are lights on in Dawson.

Mr. McRobb:   The lights might be on in Dawson, but they’re not on with this minister. He’s still—

Speaker:   Order please. That’s quite unparliamentary, and I’d ask the member to retract that, please.

Mr. McRobb:   I retract that.

Speaker:   Thank you.

Mr. McRobb:   We need to brighten up the answers in this House. Under this government’s watch, these cost overruns have tarnished the image of the Yukon Energy Corporation. At last night’s meeting there was a call to privatize the corporation.

Now, it’s on record that privatization happens to be a prominent part of this $175,000-a-year chair’s background. It’s an important part of his experience. He admitted that last night.

We all know this Yukon Party government is sliding down the privatization slope. Can the minister guarantee this House that there will be no privatization of public services within the corporation and its subsidiaries for which he is responsible?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I accept the apology from the member opposite, but I find the member from the opposite side is quite capable of maligning individuals in one way or the other.

Speaker:   Sit down, please. I’ve been talking about unparliamentary language, and when one makes reference to a person "maligning," that is unparliamentary. I would ask you to retract that, please.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I will retract that.

Speaker:   Carry on.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, I remind the members opposite that when we accepted the challenges of this government in December of last year, one of them was the problem with the Mayo-Dawson line. It was not an easy challenge. It took a lot of work to finalize and, to be honest with you, it’s a work in progress. The job is not done on the line to Dawson. We might have power in Dawson, but there are a lot of issues still outstanding, which the very capable chair has to walk through.

Hopefully, in the near future, I’ll be able to stand up in the House and report a job well done. But at this point, it is still a work in progress.

Ms. Duncan:   I also have some questions for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the Alaska Highway pipeline. It seems to be his day.

For the last year, the government has been a bystander as new energy legislation has worked its way through the U.S. Congress. The Premier wouldn’t travel to Washington to lobby on behalf of Yukoners in order to ensure we got everything we needed in the legislation to see the pipeline go ahead. The minister has done the same amount of work as the Premier — nothing.

Industry is now saying that the energy bill does not include enough incentives to move the project forward. In other words, the project may not go ahead because the minister has not been doing his job. Why has the minister been sitting on his hands for a year instead of lobbying to ensure the U.S. energy bill contained what was needed to see this project go ahead?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Speaker, it’s my day in the sun.

I will remind the members opposite again that, when we were elected in December of last year, we were elected on a platform of fighting the battles we could win. We had issues in Yukon. For us to go to Washington, D.C., with hat in hand, to change the mind of a senator from Nebraska, would be ill-spent time.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing the job we have to do to get the Yukon ready, border to border, for the eventual pipeline. Yesterday I had a very successful meeting with TransCanada and Foothills and, by the way, the Aboriginal Pipeline Group, which this government set up to answer the questions aboriginals have on the line.

For that member opposite to insinuate that our Premier and myself have been sitting on our hands is folly. She’s wrong.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, there are many Yukoners and a few former Yukoners who are upset with this government’s sit-by-and-hope attitude to this project. A former Yukon Minister of Economic Development has described the Yukon’s performance this way: while Yukon was posing for photos with Kakfwi, Stephen was paying lobbyists in Washington, D.C. to help kill efforts for an Alaska Highway pipeline, duping the Yukon — and it worked.

While the Yukon does not control anything like all of the pipeline decisions, it has a public economic responsibility to do everything it can to increase its probability of success, within reason, and at least enter into the political elements of the debate.

One of the first decisions that the government made — the members opposite — was to fire the lobbyists who were working on our behalf in Washington and in Ottawa. No wonder we lost.

Speaker:   Order please. Would the member ask the question, please?

Ms. Duncan:   Certainly, Mr. Speaker. Why did the government fail to stand up for Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   As an elected government, we certainly approach things differently from the last government. If we learned anything from the last government it was how not to do things, least of all how to handle the pipeline issue.

We certainly went east and talked to the Northwest Territories. We certainly, yesterday at the very informative meeting I had with TransCanada PipeLines — and Foothills, by the way, were very happy that the Northwest Territories and the Yukon were finally on the same track on these pipelines. We are not competing with Northwest Territories on a pipeline. We are going to open our borders so we can take advantage of both pipelines. Our businesses, our individuals — this is a huge contract for northern Canada. The first thing our Premier did was go across that border and open up communication with Northwest Territories. Under that government there was no communication with Northwest Territories.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I’m so glad the minister brought up the subject of the Northwest Territories. The Premier of the N.W.T. did what was good for the N.W.T. I only wish our minister had done the same. Instead, as the former Yukon Minister of Economic Development has said, the Yukon Party government was duped by the Northwest Territories. The Yukon Party is content to take the crumbs from the Mackenzie Valley project. It has bragged. It did so today about how well it gets along with the N.W.T., how we’re going to get hundreds of jobs in the Mackenzie Valley. So far, all we’ve seen are photo opportunities. Can the minister tell this House how many jobs have been created because of these agreements that have been signed with the Northwest Territories? I’ll give him a hint — zero.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Speaker, again, we go back and forth, back and forth. The Northwest Territories and the Yukon are both getting a pipeline. Mr. Speaker, are you surprised? Is the member opposite surprised? Did we fire the lobbyist that that government hired to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to work the Washington cocktail circuit? Did our Premier go down and wear out the rugs in all the hotels in Calgary? No, we stayed home and did our job, and our job was to get the Yukon ready for a pipeline. That’s what we did, and her party didn’t do that. The first thing her party did when they got elected was jump in an airplane and move to Calgary. We live in Whitehorse. Our problems are in the Yukon; they’re Yukon solved, and I’m not going to take a backseat to anybody in this House on how our Premier handled the negotiations with Northwest Territories on the pipeline issue. We’ve done a great job on the pipeline.

Mr. Hardy:   I’d like to follow up with the Premier on a subject we touched upon yesterday. Some time between 1998 and now the Premier saw the light. Back then he had doubts about the private/public partnerships; now he’s a convert. Let’s have a surplus that defies description and let’s put those millions and millions of dollars to work making life better for the private sector — so says the Premier.

We need some definitions though, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier spell out exactly what’s on the table and what Yukon government projects he is planning to turn into private/public partnership?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Contrary to the rhetoric coming from the other side that this government does not consult with Yukoners, I want to point out that when it comes to projects that benefit this territory and its citizens, that will help to stimulate the economy by private sector investment, that will lay the groundwork through infrastructure, for example, for long-term sustainable economic development, we’re going to do that. We’re going to make those decisions with the Yukon public.
That’s how this government does things.

Mr. Hardy:   If you’re going to make the decisions with Yukon public, first you have to inform them of what you’re doing. That’s what we’re not getting from the Premier.

I hope the Premier will forgive us for not sharing his own enthusiasm for privatization. Our reading of experiences in other Canadian jurisdictions around the world leaves us a little bit skeptical.

The big problem is that the private sector is motivated by profit, not public interest. The private sector seeks to cut costs and get the biggest return possible for their shareholders. That's understood. Even the Premier has conceded that the projects will come in much higher. What level of cost increase is the Premier willing to sustain by pursuing privatization? Three percent? Five percent? How much is too much before he says no?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   That remains to be seen. Obviously, being a sound fiscal government when it comes to the management of the finances of the territory, we’re going to do what’s best for the taxpayer. We all know how the New Democrats oppose any sort of private sector investment. The New Democratic position in this territory is to relegate Yukon citizens to being wards of the southern taxpayer. That’s not this government’s position. This government’s position is to ensure that the private sector can invest and flourish in the Yukon so we reduce our dependence on the southern taxpayer and federal government and start building self-sufficiency in this territory with the enormous potential we have here in the Yukon to make the lives of our citizens better and become net contributors to Canada.

Mr. Hardy:   I think we have to be very realistic about this. This government’s plan is to mortgage the future of the Yukon Territory and mortgage the future for the upcoming students and people entering the workforce, the upcoming people who will one day want to work in here, be MLAs, and be able to give direction for the future of this territory. This Premier is planning to mortgage that future.

Now, our research shows that public/private partnerships add an average of 10 percent to the cost. Maybe the Premier’s right about needing a new bookkeeping system that turns a mere $70 million into a $300-million surplus. The Premier is so committed to privatization that he’s changing the Yukon law to allow it, but he wants us to believe no discussions are going on with private sector companies about potential partnerships on Yukon infrastructure.

If the government’s new direction is public/private partnerships, what’s he waiting for? Why isn’t he talking with potential partners right now?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The member’s position doesn’t even make sense. The member somehow correlates public/private partnerships with selling the Yukon. It’s quite the contrary. It’s for private sector investment to come to this territory to build infrastructure that Yukoners will own. That has what this is about. We’re not mortgaging the future. That’s already been done by past governments, by mortgaging the Yukon to a position of being totally dependent upon the southern taxpayer. This government is going to build a Yukon future for our children, so they have something to look forward to.

Now, let’s look at some facts in the matter. The New Democratic government believed that the Mayo-Dawson connection and the mess that has happened there was a good thing. Look at the massive cost overruns resulting from a decision made by that government in circumventing the Taxpayer Protection Act. Let’s look at borrowing money from the immigrant investor fund, and then setting up numbered companies and dealing with other companies to spend that money in the Yukon.

Yukoners are now paying that back. This coming fiscal year, $9 million of budget must be allocated to pay back the immigrant investor fund. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is the better position: building a future for Yukoners with something that the private sector invests in and we own, or paying back long-term debts created by governments trying to circumvent the Taxpayer Protection Act?

Mrs. Peter:   My question today is for the Minister of Justice.

In February this government signed the memorandum of understanding with the Kwanlin Dun First Nation regarding construction and programming of a new correctional facility. There is certainly good reason to replace the existing Whitehorse Correctional Centre, which is unsafe and outdated. In fact, it’s so bad that the staff at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre have openly said that their safety is being compromised and the morale is through the floor over possible breakouts.

That MOU was signed nine months ago and we’ve heard nothing since. Perhaps the minister can update the situation for us. How close are we now to having a new correctional facility?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I would like to thank the member opposite for this question as well. It’s a very important question. And I’m very proud to say that we have been making strides toward delivering a new correctional centre but, more important, working with Yukon First Nations and all Yukoners in the delivery of programming in the Correctional Centre as well as delivery of correctional programming in the rest of the territory. We have been working with the Council of Yukon First Nations. We have been working with Kwanlin Dun First Nation as well. We hope to be able to report progress very shortly.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could give us some written documentation on the progress that she says is being made on this major project.

Since the memorandum of understanding was signed, Kwanlin Dun First Nation has become a partner in a new conglomerate called Epcom Resources. One of the other partners is SNC-Lavalin, a huge multinational corporation that specializes in public/private partnerships. Another partner is Macmillan Mining Contractors, whose president is also the owner of Golden Hill Ventures.

To the minister’s knowledge, what discussions have taken place between this government and the Epcom group concerning the construction and operation of the new jail?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Again, it would look as though the members opposite are casting — I don’t want to actually say what they’re cast upon, but we’re trying to tell the member opposite exactly what our government has been doing.

I think that we’ve been very clear all along with respect to Whitehorse Correctional Centre. We are working with Yukon First Nations. I should add that we are the first government to do such a thing. We continue to work with them regarding the delivery of programming within the centre, as well as the delivery of programming in the rest of the territory.

I myself have not had any discussions with those entities that the member opposite just alluded to. What I have had, though, is the opportunity to have discussions with the Council of Yukon First Nations and Kwanlin Dun First Nation regarding next steps toward progress on this very important thing called Yukon corrections, the road forward.

Mrs. Peter:   We are asking these questions on behalf of Yukon people. There is certainly confusion around that; that’s why we are asking.

Part of the memorandum of understanding gives the KDFN the right to identify business, training and employment opportunities for themselves. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we are not objecting to that goal, but it is important to make sure that the taxpayers’ money is used in the most fair and effective way possible.

If Kwanlin Dun takes on construction of the new jail, what conditions are in place to ensure that the tendering processes used are at least as fair and open as they would be if government did the project itself?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Upon being elected, I learned that the facility that was being proposed was a very ambitious project. We received input from Yukon First Nations that perhaps that wasn’t the way to go, and that perhaps what we should be doing is looking at the delivery of corrections in the territory in all the communities and at what community-based programming we could do to reduce the recidivism rate in this territory, which happens to be one of the highest in the country. Also, the largest part of our clients within the Whitehorse Correctional Centre is of First Nation ancestry.

We have taken great strides in becoming involved with Yukon First Nations on a government-to-government basis. We are proceeding on that front, and I couldn’t be more proud to be part of this initiative.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a follow-up question for the Premier on his plans to privatize government projects.

SNC-Lavalin, as was stated earlier, is a huge multi-service organization that operates around the world. It specializes in public infrastructure and it will do pretty much anything that’s needed — design, construction, management, and even financing.

This huge organization already has partnerships with several First Nation governments in the Yukon and they’ve made it very clear they’re looking for projects to do here. Has the Premier or any of his colleagues or officials had any discussions with SNC-Lavalin or any of its Yukon partners about potential projects in the Yukon — yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We certainly had discussions with SNC-Lavalin and their partners in welcoming and encouraging this type of partnership. We believe investment in the Yukon, especially from outside the Yukon, is vital and critical to growing our economy.

As far as these so-called mythical projects the member is talking about and this nonsense statement about privatizing the Yukon, it’s impossible to answer something like that. It’s pure conjecture. This is not what’s happening at all in this territory, Mr. Speaker. We are actively proceeding with changing the direction the territory has been going in for so long, because it was the wrong direction, and we are actively pursuing initiatives that will help us to rebuild this territory, create a better quality of life for our citizens and, above all, ensure that we apply good governance.

That’s what we’re doing. The member opposite can continue down this road with this line of questioning, but there’s a serious credibility problem in that for the official opposition.

Mr. Hardy:   The Premier is becoming quite a master at what you call doublespeak. The Premier is also making his best effort at presenting a moving target on this matter. It’s no wonder that so many people are feeling so mistrustful of this government. There’s hidden agenda upon hidden agenda here and that’s what we’re trying to find out — exactly what’s going on behind the scenes.

Let’s take the discussion back to the policy level. Does the Premier believe there is a place for toll roads or toll bridges in the Yukon’s future, and if so, should the revenue go to the private sector or to government?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   This government will do one thing always and that is deal with factual information: substantive issues, issues of policy, issues important to Yukon. This question is mere speculation. There is no toll bridge; there is no toll road. We are talking about increasing options for the Yukon government and the Yukon Territory to be able to solicit the private sector to invest in our territory — partnering with us and building a brighter and better future. The nonsense that is being portrayed here certainly has nothing to do with that; but if the member opposite has a question of substance and of policy and of what Yukoners feel is very important to them, like our economy, we’d be more than willing to engage the official opposition.

Mr. Hardy:   I guess the minister has just admitted that this whole discussion around private/public partnership isn’t about the economy. This whole idea around the Taxpayer Protection Act and the changes to it to free up over $300 million dollars so they can go on a spending spree — it’s not about the economy. You really have to wonder what the heck this Premier is saying, or does he even know what he is saying?

I have another policy question for the Premier. Does the Premier believe that any facilities or infrastructure built through private/public partnership should remain in private hands, and under what conditions would he allow it? Let’s see if we can actually get an answer out of the Premier instead of rhetoric and attacks.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I would question where the attacks are actually coming from. This side of the House is very focused on dealing with issues that are important and vital to Yukon and its people.

As far as the continued speculative debate, we have no intention of entering into it. What we’re doing here is adding options to the territory’s ability to reduce our dependence on the southern taxpayer, to be able to grow our economy by having the private sector much more involved, as it should be.

That’s something that is not abnormal; in fact, it’s done across the country, except here in the Yukon. And it hasn’t been happening here in the Yukon because past governments have chased the private sector out of here. We are going to exhaust all options to bring the private sector back, reduce our dependence on the federal government, increase our ability to grow our economy and become net contributors to Canada. That’s what a better quality of life is all about, and that’s how you achieve it.

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

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 101, standing in the name of Ms. Duncan.

Ms. Duncan:   I move that Bill No. 101, entitled An Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the leader of the third party that Bill No. 101, entitled An Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act, be now read a second time.

Ms. Duncan:   I am pleased to rise today to speak to this private member’s bill. It doesn’t happen very often in this Legislature that we deal with private members’ bills. Usually on Wednesdays we’re dealing with motions, such as were read into the record earlier today. I’m certain that the Clerk could advise us that the number of private members’ bills that have come before this Legislature would not even take up all the fingers on one hand.

The fact is that this bill — a private member’s bill — has been on the Order Paper for quite some time. I tabled it on March 3, 2003.

I would like to speak, in speaking to this bill, briefly about the history of the Taxpayer Protection Act as well as the history of the Yukon’s finances. Through my second reading speech, I would like to attempt to convince the members opposite that the goodwill they have spoken about in the past in working with other members of the Legislature could and should be evidenced in support of this particular bill.

In 1985, just at the tail end of the Phelps government, the Yukon was able — through the efforts in Ottawa of our then Member of Parliament, Erik Nielsen — to obtain the formula finance funding arrangement. That formula finance funding arrangement — Yukon got it first and it was extended to the Northwest Territories and then, of course, subsequently to Nunavut — was groundbreaking at the time.

For our Member of Parliament — who happened to be the Deputy Prime Minister at the time — it was also a tough sell in Cabinet and with Treasury Board. It took a lot of work and a lot of political will to get the formula financing arrangement. He was successful and it was an incredible achievement.

So, since 1985, we have had this formula with Ottawa, which grants the Yukon monies to operate every year. It is a very complex formula. It is based on population, based on — as the about-to-be former Premier of the Northwest Territories used to say — how much money municipalities spend in southern Ontario, or the provincial ratio. So there are a number of complex factors in the formula, including the perversity factor.

The object of the formula was that the Yukon would stand on its own feet, would not be forever dependent upon the southern Ontario taxpayer, that we would grow, that our economy would develop, that we would become self-sufficient, and the formula would help us do that because, with the three-year formula, we didn’t have to go every year, cap in hand, to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and say, "Please sir, may we have some more; may we have the money to operate for a year?"

What we had was our own self-sufficiency.

That formula has been incredibly well managed since 1985, and credit must be given to the successive deputy ministers of Finance, Mr. Fingland as well as Mr. Sanderson. I recognize that these are individuals outside of this House but, if the Speaker would grant me some latitude in paying some compliments, I appreciate the opportunity to name these individuals.

Mr. Fingland believed very strongly that taxpayers’ money should not be spent needlessly, that we should treat each nickel of taxpayers’ money like it was our own.

I’d like to thank the students again for coming and wish them a good afternoon.

Mr. Sanderson — I’m not sure all members are aware — is not only a lawyer but also a very talented financial manager.

Perhaps it speaks volumes of Mr. Sanderson’s work when, at his retirement function, all the former government leaders were present to wish him well. He is a consummate public servant who served every Yukon Minister of Finance extremely well, and he is sorely missed in the territory.

Certainly his former tasks have been taken on by a very capable individual, and I know he is also serving the territory extremely well. I would like to, in speaking of the history of the Yukon’s finances, pay particular compliments to both of those individuals.

In 1996, the then Yukon Party government introduced the Taxpayer Protection Act. They introduced the act for very good reasons — very good reasons — and I will speak to those later on in my address this afternoon. The fact is the act has served Yukon people very, very well. It is also recognized as a piece of legislation as, if not the best in the country, one of the best. Finance ministers have told me in the past that certainly no act that they’ve encountered affords Yukon taxpayers the protection that is outlined in our act.

And the evidence is also in the territory’s finances. We don’t have the debt that other jurisdictions are carrying. And every Yukon minister who has travelled out of the territory and every Yukoner who speaks about this issue with southern Canadians who listen to their finance ministers address the nation and say, "Well, we’re $5 billion in debt" — we don’t have to say that, and that is incredibly important. As a minister of the government travelling outside of this territory, being able to say, "No, we aren’t carrying the debt that other provinces and territories are; we aren’t" — it’s a very important point and Yukoners are very, very proud of the fact that we pay our way.

In looking at the history of the formula and the surplus and the straight finances of the territory since the formula began, it’s interesting. But if one examines the accumulated surplus beginning in 1985, when we started with the formula, and adjusting for inflation, give or take a nominal sum, every government over time has achieved the same result.

The formula, combined with the Taxpayer Protection Act, has served us very well. The Taxpayer Protection Act imposes a discipline. It imposes a discipline upon finance ministers and upon Management Board. The Executive Council and each of the members and the Management Board are bound by the act. It’s not just the Finance minister. Every member of Management Board is bound by the act.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, it has served us very, very well. Since we’ve had the formula and since we’ve had the Taxpayer Protection Act, those two combined are a strong discipline; they have served Yukoners well. We aren’t a debt-ridden territory. We are a strong territory with strong individuals who are proud of paying their way.

So why on earth would I table an amendment that says that the Taxpayer Protection Act cannot be amended without the unanimous consent of the Yukon Legislature Assembly? Because, Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer Protection Act is so fundamental to the financial health and well-being of the territory and so important to the territory’s future.

I’m not saying that the Taxpayer Protection Act could not ever be amended, and I’d like to talk about some of the amendments that are possible. There’s an old expression when it comes to money, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." There could be a change proposed to the Taxpayer Protection Act that would follow section 8. Section 8 talks about the new tax law or changes in tax law. It says that if you want to change the tax law, go to a referendum. You can’t make significant changes in tax law without the support of Yukoners in a referendum.

So we could add a section 9 that government not loan money to business. I have heard every member of this House say that government shouldn’t be in the business of loaning money to business. Government has done it before — without success. For example, the Yukon Development Corporation and the loans of $18 million — taxpayers’ money gone.

The Yukon Party made changes to the Yukon Development Corporation governance and the act that said: no, money, dividends from taxpayers have to be spent on energy-related projects. So they got government out of the business of loaning money.

There has been a decrease of the outstanding loans on the books right now — if one examines the consolidated accounts. It’s slight, but it’s still in excess of $5 million.

And it has been agreed upon in this House many times that government shouldn’t be in the loan business. Perhaps there could be an amendment to the Taxpayer Protection Act, following section 8 — put it in section 9 — saying that government shouldn’t be in the business of loaning money. The point of my amendment is that you would have to get everybody in the House to agree. If you want to make the changes, it has to be unanimous. You have to convince — "you" being a government in this case. A government that wanted to bring forward a change to this fundamental piece of legislation has to convince every member of the House that it’s the right thing to do. It could be done. It could be done.

We have heard — in fact, I’ve seen it in print in newsletters — talk of all-party cooperation in the Legislature.

According to some newsletters, there has been an unprecedented, unanimous passage of five government motions. If there is a true belief and discipline in cooperation, then let it be reflected in this act — this act that is so important to Yukoners and served Yukoners so well. Let’s see the goodwill. Let’s make it a requirement that any changes to the Taxpayer Protection Act have to be unanimous; you — the government — proposing the change has to convince every member of the House that the change is important to the financial health of the territory.

It may be that some amendments would pass, and there has been discussion about the leave liability account. Like other accounting measures, people’s eyes can glaze over when we start to talk about it, but I would like to address it for a few moments.

The leave liability account is a very unusual liability on our books — it’s very unusual. Since the implementation of the Taxpayer Protection Act, three different governments that I’m aware of have done what they called "capping" and "uncapping" it. That means, if every single member of the public service who has leave and so on on the books decided to leave in one day, according to current estimates, it would cost $42 million. It’s not going to happen. This is what I mean by an unusual liability.

So governments have said that it’s reasonable to have $30 million in that account. That’s what the Taxpayer Protection Act says. The minister responsible for the Public Service Commission shakes his head. Well, if one goes back and examines the financial statements, the most that has ever been paid out of that account in any one year is $3 million.

So do you say to Yukoners, "No, we can’t provide vaccines and flu shots at no cost because we have to have this liability on the books." There comes a choice for management boards and governments. At what point does recording something on the books versus providing public services become an issue?

It has been an issue for three different governments: the Ostashek government, the McDonald government and my government — both capped and uncapped. What difference does it make? It makes a difference in that the Auditor General has both qualified and unqualified statements. The only difference that makes to a government is if they need to go and borrow against those financial statements — that’s where the difference comes in.

A government could — realistically though — bring forward, talk about that leave liability account so that everybody understands it, and make an amendment to the act that changes the amount that is listed for that account. An amendment could be passed with unanimous consent of the House — it could be. If everybody understood what it was about and everybody accepted the explanation, that could happen. It has to be unanimous. We have to all agree.

My point is that the Taxpayer Protection Act is not unamendable; it can be done.

If the current changes elsewhere on our Order Paper are truly as benign as some view them, then convince every member of the House. Convince us all. Have it passed unanimously.

Unanimous consent imposes a discipline on the governing party — hands across the Legislature. I could encourage the members to look at this as a test of the government’s goodwill.

If the government is truly committed to all-party cooperation then let’s pass something other than just government motions unanimously.

Let’s pass something that the opposition has put forward, and let’s pass something as important to Yukoners as unanimous agreement on their finances.

Money bills themselves are confidence bills. That’s a long-held parliamentary tradition in our legislatures. If you can’t get your budget through, then the government falls. The Taxpayer Protection Act is more of a modern day situation. It doesn’t have years and years of parliamentary tradition behind it. I look at it certainly as a test of the government’s goodwill. If you want to mess with the books, convince everybody in the House you should.

I would like to draw members’ attention to a recent commentary from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a commentary about governments and their budgets by Walter Robinson. And the title of the editorial is, "Don’t Post a Fake Surplus, Go Directly to Jail." It’s important because he notes in there that truth in budgeting legislation is long overdue. He also said that politicians who deliberately mislead taxpayers about the state of public finances deserve the same fate as fraudsters behind Wall Street accounting scandals, like Enron — steep fines and jail time. Mr. Robinson is pointing out in this article how fundamentally important it is that, in our modern day world, governments tell the Legislature and the public precisely what the surplus is and about the budgets more than once a year, about timing and budgets. He even references special warrants. Taxpayers’ money. This is about how taxpayers’ money is spent, and this legislation is about taxpayer protection. So if a government wants to amend the Taxpayer Protection Act, make that amendment unanimous or don’t make it at all.

I look at this as a notwithstanding clause, Mr. Speaker; it’s that fundamentally important to the future of the Yukon. The Taxpayer Protection Act has imposed a discipline upon governments, a discipline to live within their means — to neither a borrower, and shouldn’t have been, a lender be, that we shouldn’t borrow against our children’s future. We should accept the words the Prime Minister elect recently said — and has said, I’m certain, many times before — that we shouldn’t mortgage our children or our grandchildren’s future.

The act as it stands is a good one. I’m asking members to support an amendment that would require that any changes to it be unanimously passed by this House.

The members opposite could say, "Well, why didn’t you do that when you were in government if you felt it was that important?" Mr. Speaker, because I did not for a moment believe that anybody would ever try and mess with the Taxpayer Protection Act. It just hasn’t been done by previous governments. They didn’t do that. And members opposite find that humorous. It was the discipline. It’s the act. It’s the law. You don’t mess with it. That was the advice from officials, officials who served us very well. It served previous governments very well. They were still able to do strong economic initiatives; they were still able to work toward fundamental construction of much-needed infrastructure. Most important, we lived within our means.

Without discipline like the Taxpayer Protection Act, it leads to borrowing.

I have asked that the members opposite examine the amendment I have brought forward. I would ask that they examine it in good faith and with the goodwill they have expressed in their newsletters, and give fair and full consideration to it. If an amendment in the future is as necessary, then it should pass.

This isn’t about partisan politics. This is about the taxpayers, and we were all elected to serve them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the debate.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I think there is just cause to quickly move to a vote on this, so everybody can put on the record what their position is.

Now, I can understand, to a great degree, what the member opposite is trying to do here. However, when a member of this House brings forward bills such as this, the member must make the case — make the case, outside of any doubt — that this should be the course that the government takes. I must say that in this regard the member opposite has not made the case. I just want to spend a little time pointing that out.

First off, we have to get to the crux of the issue, what the real issue is.

The members opposite are making much of the fact that the Taxpayer Protection Act is being gutted. On that point, that is simply not the case. It is incorrect; it has nothing to do with the amendment; it even has nothing to do with the Taxpayer Protection Act as it exists, before or after the amendment. The Taxpayer Protection Act remains intact; it remains the same; and I will point that out.

When it comes to the very essence of this act, I will read the sections so there is no confusion and so there is clarity on the issue. It’s about no creation of, or increase in, accumulated deficit. The act itself spells out exactly how that must transpire, and this amendment does not change that one iota.

Section 3(1) states: "An accumulated deficit must not be created or increased." The amendment to the Taxpayer Protection Act has not changed that, compromised it or diminished it in any way, shape or form. It remains intact. The Yukon cannot create or increase an accumulated deficit, before and after this amendment.

Section 3(2) states: "An appropriation that would create or increase an accumulated deficit must not be sought from the Legislative Assembly." Again, this remains intact. The amendment does not remove, diminish or compromise in any way, shape or form this clause of the act, and this is what the act is intended to do.

Section 3(3) states" "An appropriation does not authorize an expenditure in violation of this act." Well, I think that’s self-explanatory, and this amendment, again, does not remove, change or compromise in any way the intent of this clause. It remains the same.

Section 3(4), "A special warrant must not be made if it would create or increase an accumulated deficit." Again, Mr. Speaker, for clarity’s sake, the amendment does not in any way, shape or form remove, compromise or diminish this clause, in keeping with the intent of the Taxpayer Protection Act.

Section 3(5) states: "There may be an annual deficit, but only if it does not create or increase the accumulated deficit." Again, the amendment does not remove, reduce or compromise in any way, shape or form this clause. In short, Mr. Speaker, the amendment does not change the act as it was intended. The amendment does not remove the safeguards for the Yukon taxpayer when it comes to the government going into an accumulated deficit. The amendment does not remove the elements of the act that ensure the government cannot raise taxes like income tax without a public referendum. None of that changes.

What changes, Mr. Speaker, is that we, in going to a full accrual accounting system as directed and recommended by the Auditor General, have seen the opportunity to go to a bookkeeping system that will provide us more options under the accumulated surplus deficit cap to partner with other governments and the private sector to get investment in this territory and stimulate the economy.

Now, next point: the members opposite continue on this tirade of debt, as if to say — and they imply this, Mr. Speaker — that this amendment would put the territory into debt. That, again, Mr. Speaker, is incorrect. Deficit and debt are two entirely different things. And I would urge the members opposite to brush up on those points, because it’s vital to the debate. It’s important to the debate.

The Yukon Territory, when it comes to debt, is regulated in the level of debt it can incur, by order-in-council of the federal government — period. We can’t go above that. We cannot go into debt above that threshold that has been regulated by that order-in-council by the federal government.

So again, the arguments coming from the other side are incorrect and are not lending constructively to the debate.

The members opposite should be looking at why this amendment is a good thing and how they can contribute to that aspect of this benign and simple amendment.

Furthermore — and this is where —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Speaker:   Member for Mount Lorne, on a point of order.

Mr. Cardiff:   I am kind of confused here. I am just wondering which amendment to the Taxpayer Protection Act the Premier is talking about. I was under the understanding that we were talking about Bill No. 101, and it doesn’t sound to me like he is talking about this amendment. He is talking about a different amendment to the Taxpayer Protection Act.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   If I may, Mr. Speaker — I started out by saying that when a member brings forward a bill of this nature, they must make the case. That did not happen in this debate so far. I, on the other hand, in representing the government side on debating this amendment, am making the case. I am making the case for why there is no need for the bill brought forward by the private member, the third party, the party of one.

Speaker:   The Chair is of the opinion that there is no point of order. We are talking about the bill being proposed. I seem to find a correlation; therefore, there is no point of order.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I want to get to my next point. Because the Taxpayer Protection Act — as it has existed up until this point in time — has been in place and the Yukon has been facing the situation that it has in our ever-diminishing private sector economy, governments have found some ingenious ways of getting around the intent of the Taxpayer Protection Act, and in some of those cases, even getting around the fact that debt was not the original intention.

The reason they were getting around it, Mr. Speaker, is because to try to stimulate and generate cash flow in our economy, government has to spend money. And in spending money — obviously every time the government invests in a capital project, for example — it would reduce the net or accumulated surplus that we have in the bank or in government.

Mr. Speaker, when you think about it, it gets to the crux of the argument that the other side is making. The problem here is government spending does not work in creating an economy. And we see that, and the evidence is clear. The increase of government spending can be associated distinctly with a decrease in the Yukon’s economy, a decrease in private sector investment, a decrease in the population, and in that, a decrease in government revenues; therefore — and the debate has happened in this House on many occasions — the government side has stated clearly that the trajectory and levels of spending cannot be sustained.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Speaker:   Government House leader, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I bring to the Speaker’s attention that there does not appear to be a quorum present.

Speaker:   According to Standing Order 3(2), if, at any time during the sitting of the Assembly, the Speaker’s attention is drawn to the fact that there does not appear to be a quorum, the Speaker will cause the bells to ring for four minutes.

We have a quorum. Carry on please.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   As I was saying, the correlation to government spending and the reduction of private sector spending was leading to where the Yukon was going to hit the wall when it comes to its problems in creating an economy here and stimulating spending power in the Yukon.

So this amendment has nothing to do with the amendment on the floor of the Legislature, the amendment to the Taxpayer Protection Act. It has absolutely nothing to do with creating debt, mortgaging the future, or any of these things. It is an option that’s made available to the Yukon to change the direction this territory is going in and to be able to engage with the private sector — obviously — and other orders of government to increase the levels of spending in the Yukon and not continue to increase the spending of the government itself, but to use small expenditures by government to leverage investment from the private sector, for example.

In doing so, we do something else that’s very important. With this amendment, we provide full disclosure to the Yukon public. Now, I want to make this point very clear again. Past governments have not provided full disclosure to the Yukon public. Past governments have not correctly reported the liability of the Yukon government, therefore not providing the correct surplus to the Yukon taxpayer in any given fiscal year. In short, past governments were cooking the books.

We have no intention of doing that. As sound fiscal managers, we are going to provide full financial disclosure to the Yukon public. We are correctly reporting the liabilities, and we are reporting the level of surplus. Surplus is created by revenues, assets, reduction of liabilities; it creates retained earnings and/or surplus deficit.

Speaker:   The hon. Premier used the term "cooking the books" to refer to the previous administrations. The Chair feels that that’s argumentative and possibly unparliamentary, and I’d ask the hon. Premier to withdraw that remark, please.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. I got lost in reality there for a moment. Let me rephrase that by saying that our past governments did not correctly report the finances of the Yukon government to its taxpayers.

Speaker:   I’d ask the Premier to withdraw those remarks, please.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I withdraw them.

Speaker:   Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   As I said, I got lost in reality for a moment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this amendment is very benign. This amendment is a simple bookkeeping amendment, and this amendment allows us to not only provide full disclosure to the Yukon public, it allows us to provide one set of books. We maintain the integrity of the act, and we get the benefit of partnering with the private sector, for example, to increase the spending power in this territory — not by government going on a spending spree, but by the private sector investing in the Yukon — investing in the Yukon as it should because history shows us, at least over the last decade, that the lack of private sector investment has severely restricted our economy. We are going to change that. That’s what we were elected to do, and we are carrying forward with that on many fronts, whether it be our relationship with First Nations, increasing the surplus, making the business case to remove the disincentives and the impediments in the formula, increasing our options under the surplus deficit cap to engage the private sector and have them invest in the Yukon, increasing mining exploration — across the board, Mr. Speaker, we are doing those things.

And we’re not short on the social program either. In fact, in the supplementary budget alone, vast amounts of money — millions — are allocated to help those in need, more money for education and, of course, more money for health care.

This shows a very sound fiscal management of the territory’s finances by a progressive conservative government, and that’s what we believed all along was required in this territory to turn it around. Now, let’s get to the bill.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, is one that the member opposite, if really intent on contributing to the debate — the member opposite could simply vote on this amendment. If this amendment in any way, shape or form compromised the Taxpayer Protection Act, I could understand what the member is trying to do, but the amendment that we have brought forward does not. The bill that the member has brought forward is one where the member intends to continue the political rhetoric and, frankly, the simplest thing to have done here was to stand up and vote for or against the amendment to the Taxpayer Protection Act.

Let us not forget that it’s the same party — the third party — which, when in this House when the Taxpayer Protection Act was brought forward, opposed the Taxpayer Protection Act as it existed then and exists today. Nothing has changed. They opposed it. In fact, the member of the third party who tabled this bill — I will quote what the member’s colleague stated. The member stated in debate in opposition to this Taxpayer Protection Act, the one we have before us today, the one that has not changed one iota when it comes to the intent of the amendment the Yukon government has tabled — the colleague of the member opposite said: "In my view, a competent government is the best protection that a taxpayer can get. No amount of legislative draftsmanship will protect taxpayers from poor government." I have to agree with the member’s former colleague. That’s what this government is all about.

Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of supporting this bill — none whatsoever. We have every intention of continuing our work on achieving a better quality of life for our citizens, of implementing good governance for our citizens, of making a strong economy, and we are going to do it across all the fronts that we have begun working on in one short year of our mandate.

Have we changed things? Have we turned things around? I think the indicators show clearly that that’s happening. Mining has come back to the territory. There is interest in oil and gas. Our arts and culture community and tourism community are excited. They have a positive attitude today.

We have increased spending power in the Yukon. We are getting this territory moving. We are not happy about the unemployment rate, but I would suggest that the unemployment rate today reflects the reality — unlike the past government, which reduced the unemployment rate by the exodus of the population. That exodus no longer continues.

Let’s look at some other indicators that are very important, because one small aspect of any economy is the unemployment factor. The real issue is spending power — the fuel that drives any economic engine. Retail sales are up 3.2 percent under this government’s watch. Wholesale — another indicator of spending power — is up 12.7 percent. They are important numbers, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s also look at another indicator. The value of real estate — this, again, can be attributed to spending power. The increase is 20.5 percent in values. These are just some of the indicators that show that the territory is now starting to move in the right direction.

I would suggest the members opposite be more focused in a substantive way on these things versus playing political games.

We will not support this bill brought forward by the third party. There is no need to. The Taxpayer Protection Act has not been compromised. Nothing has been changed. What we have managed to do and what we have accomplished with the amendment is increase our ability to grow our economy, not by government expenditure and dependence upon the southern taxpayer, but by capital investment and investment in the Yukon by the private sector.

Mr. Cardiff:   This afternoon we are talking about Bill No. 101, An Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act. I’m still confused as to which act the Premier spoke most about. He didn’t really speak much about whether or not unanimous consent of the Yukon Legislative Assembly was a good idea to amend a piece of legislation like this.

I’d like to point out to the Premier — he mentioned that the opportunity was there for the two previous governments to amend the Taxpayer Protection Act in this way, to require unanimous consent, and it wasn’t done. I might also point out that it probably was possible for both of the previous governments to ask to have this act repealed, in which case we wouldn’t be here discussing either of the amendments to the act.

The Premier has another act to amend the Taxpayer Protection Act. If he did his job, he’d be able to get unanimous consent — if he were to explain the intent of his amendment in a comprehensive manner that was understandable to everybody. He can’t even seem to explain it to the public.

He talked about all kinds of things that in my mind weren’t even related to this, and I’m going to go there as well. He did talk about increased spending power. He talked about the Taxpayer Protection Act and the amendments to it not affecting social programs and health care. Why do we have a campaign to raise money for a system that’s supposedly publicly funded health care, that’s supposed to reduce the O&M costs of the health care system?

The Premier also talked about the exodus from the Yukon and how great the economy was and the Yukon Party vision of the economy and how the Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act was going to increase the public sector economy and how that was going to stem the exodus of people from the Yukon and how that has stemmed the exodus of people from the Yukon. Well, I have to disagree with that.

The exodus from the Yukon continues. People are leaving for the Okanagan, as I said the other day. People are leaving for Fort McMurray. We have tradespeople in Russia. We have people who are talking about going to Iqaluit. So what good does that do the economy of the Yukon?

I don’t see why the Premier is so upset about this act to amend the Taxpayer Protection Act. What it means is that the government has to work a little harder to convince us on this side of the House that their intentions are the right intentions and that the ideas that are presented are good. But they haven’t even attempted to do that — to explain it. In fact, in the briefing, there was no rationale provided for having to change the Taxpayer Protection Act at all.

And this doesn’t change the intent of the Taxpayer Protection Act. All this does is require the unanimous consent of this Assembly to change it. And the government wants to — every time we pass a motion in this House and achieve unanimous consent, the government House leader stands up and crows and says what a great day in the Yukon it is. But he’s not willing to go the extra mile here and grant unanimous consent to what I see as a good change to the Taxpayer Protection Act. I support this, and I look forward to hearing what the government House leader has to say.

Thank you.

Speaker:   If the member now speaks, she will close debate. Does any other member wish to be heard?

Ms. Duncan:   I have tried this afternoon, and this bill has been on the Order Paper for some time, to convince members that any amendment brought forward to the Taxpayer Protection Act should be unanimous. I have tried without success. The Premier has made a case on other amendments — or has tried to make his case on other amendments. He has made reference to this bill as political gamesmanship.

This private member’s bill was tabled on March 3, 2003, long before other amendments came forward. It expressed at the time, as it also expresses today, how strongly I feel — and Yukoners feel — about this legislation. The Taxpayer Protection Act is a strong act, a good act, and that for any changes, you have to convince everyone.

There are only a number of opportunities — they are quite limited — for me to bring forward items for debate, Mr. Speaker. I brought this forward in the belief that this all-party cooperation that the other side speaks of would extend to those other than themselves, that there would be cooperation with this side, that there would be an understanding that others may have a point to make and that, fundamentally, we were all here and all elected to serve our constituents, to serve the taxpayers.

The Taxpayer Protection Act, as it exists, protects the taxpayer. All the act proposed was that any changes be unanimous. Just as it requires unanimous consent to proceed along a number of other items of importance to Yukoners in the business of this House, I was asking that the business we do, on behalf of taxpayers in this piece of legislation, be unanimous — that we all agree.

It’s unfortunate that what has been rejected is working together on behalf of Yukoners. It has also proven that the further amendments proposed are, in fact, anything but benign because we all could have been convinced. If the amendments are innocuous, as suggested in the Premier’s address, then there shouldn’t be a problem agreeing with them.

The government has failed to make their case. They’ve tried to justify the further changes and have failed. They have also portrayed themselves as cooperative, and they have equally failed. I’m disappointed, not because this is an amendment I proposed — I’m disappointed on behalf of all Yukoners. I thought working together, as we’re asked to, we really could have done a whole lot better.

And, Mr. Speaker, today we haven’t.

Thank you.

Speaker:   Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:   Division.

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Speaker:   Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Disagree.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Disagree.

Mr. Arntzen:   Disagree.

Mr. Rouble:   Disagree.

Mr. Hassard:   Disagree.

Mr. Cathers:   Disagree.

Mr. Hardy:   Disagree.

Excuse me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct my vote. I agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Cardiff:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Ms. Duncan:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 10 nay, 5 yea, and one re-thought yea.

The final result is, therefore, 6 yea, 10 nay.

Speaker:   The nays have it. I declare the motion defeated.

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 102, standing in the name of Ms. Duncan.

Ms. Duncan:   I move that Bill No. 102, entitled An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the leader of the third party that Bill No. 102, entitled An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a second time.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate and would like to thank my colleagues in the Legislature for the opportunity to address this issue which is of tremendous importance to a number of my constituents. It’s an issue that I have brought up with ministers opposite and I’ve raised as a motion in this Legislature. If members would permit me, I would like to outline the background to this issue and the situation and the reasoning behind the bill.

The Employment Standards Act has in it section 105(2) — basically it outlines that if an employer has a contract directly or indirectly with the Government of Yukon — and it’s very specific, it says "for building construction, heavy construction, or road, sewer and water main construction, the employer shall pay the employees engaged or employed in connection with the contract not less than the applicable rate set out in the Fair Wage Schedule."

What that means is that the government sets out a fair wage schedule, and contracts that are let by the Government of Yukon, say for road construction, must pay the employees at a specific rate. The road construction industry has been very supportive of this particular initiative — the fair wage schedule — as has other construction because it prevents is the underbidding of contracts on the backs of the employee.

What that means is that a company can’t come in from outside of the territory and pay their employees less than what a Yukon contractor would pay. So, on government contracts, a fair wage applies.

Now, the issue with respect to the safe transportation of students — because that’s what our school bus drivers do. They safely transport our students to school. It’s important to note that these are not simply individuals with a certain class of driver’s licence. These are individuals who have care and control of a very large vehicle; they must have certain first aid training, specific driver training; and ultimately they have a great deal of responsibility for the passengers — precious cargo — as well as other road users. It is one of the largest vehicles on the road and it’s carrying arguably the most precious cargo. The drivers have to be aware of their responsibilities.

And I would note, as well, that these individuals not only transport our students safely, but they also transport them safely with on-time service, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Cuts to school busing budgets, such as were evidenced in Ontario under the previous administration, threaten the safety and have implications far beyond a line in a budget.

School bus drivers, who are responsible for the safe transportation of our students, should arguably receive a fair wage for what they do. They are very skilled, have a high degree of responsibility, and they should be paid accordingly.

School bus drivers — and the safe transportation of students — is a Government of Yukon contract in this territory. The argument that the school bus drivers make is that they would like to see themselves identified, and their profession identified, in the fair wage schedule so that the Government of Yukon contract that is let for the safe transportation of students cannot be won or lost using their wages as the key bidding point.

They have come to me, as a member, and said, "We have this problem. How do we fix it within the existing legislation?" I brought forward a motion and asked the government to do this. I wrote the Minister of Justice, in her capacity as being responsible for the Cabinet Committee on Legislation, and asked, "Would the government examine this?" I know that other bus drivers have gone to the government, as well, and asked for this change.

I wrote on March 12 to ask for an amendment to the fair wage schedule to include school bus drivers. And I asked back in July, and I tabled my motion in the previous session because there’s a time factor here — the school bus contract for the safe transportation of students is let in April for three years.

It’s let in April, and then the contract would start in September. So there is a contracting/tendering process coming up next spring. The professional school bus drivers don’t want to see their wages used as the bidding point for the contract. It makes sense. How do we deal with this then? If they’re included in the fair wage schedule, it wouldn’t be.

That’s all I’m asking — for the government to do that. That’s all I asked in March and in July and in August. Unfortunately, I was advised that, if the government were planning to bring it forward, they’d let me know. That was the response I received in September. There’s a short period of time in which to table legislation. It wasn’t coming forward, so I brought forward the private members’ bill because I can hear the urgency. If this contract is to be done in the spring, it’s unlikely we can make an amendment in the spring, have it in effect and have it in time for this contract.

Now, when a member is elected to this Legislature, they’re asked all kinds of things by different constituents. They’re asked for help on a number of different issues and, as members, we all try to help them. We’re all here with the same intention: we’re trying to help our constituents; we’re trying to do our job on their behalf.

These constituents have come to me and asked about this. It was partly an issue that didn’t come forward — it certainly didn’t come to my attention to the same degree when we were in government. I’m certain that, were we in government now, there would be many arguments put forward by officials that this would increase the cost of government. I’d like to address that.

The cost of school busing is in our budget documents. Yes, there was a decrease in cost when it was tendered. The contract is still going to be tendered.

The cost-savings should not be on the backs of employees. No one in this House wants that. Nobody wants that. We don’t want to see an entry level position and entry level wages for someone who’s being asked to pilot one of the largest vehicles on the road, ensure that students arrive safely, ensure that they arrive on time and at the same time watch out for all the other drivers on the road.

I will just digress for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In speaking with these school bus drivers, I have been appalled at the number of instances they’ve shared with me about other drivers on the road going around the flashing red lights on the bus. These are students; these are individuals. Maybe it’s humorous to some people who don’t have children riding that bus. It’s not humorous to me, and it’s not humorous to me when we’re talking about children being transported to our schools safely. And we should recognize the job, the task that these individuals perform, and they should be paid accordingly. And no company would want to win a contract on the backs of Yukoners and decrease the wages of those employees. All we’re asking for is a fair wage — a fair wage. I have corresponded with the drivers and have said to them that — to return to the point — in the absence of the government bringing forward legislation, I brought forward a private member’s bill. I can understand the government has lots to do. The Cabinet Committee on Legislation has had lots of stuff to look at. I can understand how this would not be the top priority. There is urgency to it though. That contract is to be tendered this spring. This is the opportunity to pass legislation, so if I have to use my time, so be it.

The government can stand and say, "Well, it’s not very well drafted." I’ll be the first to admit that I did the best I could, but I’m not a legislative draftsperson. And if the government has an amendment that’s more correctly legislatively drafted, let’s have it. Let’s hear it, let’s deal with it in Committee, and I would be happy to work with them. But I would really like to deal with this issue on behalf of these individuals. It’s fair, it’s the most appropriate way I can see, in reading legislation, to address their concern, address it in a timely manner, to get it done by the spring. Fundamentally, though, it’s the right thing to do for these individuals.

I don’t accept an argument that it’s precedent-setting — "What’s next?" I mean, are we going to be adding who-knows-what to the fair wage schedule? No. The precedent has already been set. We do this for other industries, and it’s only in contracts by the Government of Yukon. That’s only where the fair wage schedule applies. And I specifically said "safe transportation of students" because that’s what we’re talking about.

It’s the right thing to do. It’s appropriate within the government’s legislation, and I would ask for members’ support. If the government wishes to amend it, to have it more appropriately written, I’m more than happy to accept that. I would, quite simply, like to see it passed and would like to see the government implement this change on behalf of those individuals who perform a very necessary and important public service and, most importantly, they perform it very well.

Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I rise today to respond to Bill No. 102, presented by the third party leader, seeking to amend the Employment Standards Act to include bus drivers in the fair wage schedule.

The fair wage schedule was established to create a level playing field in the bidding process for construction projects tendered by the Yukon government. It guarantees that all employers, local or otherwise, pay a fair wage to their workers on these contracts. The purpose of the competitive bidding process is to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used in the most efficient manner possible.

As the member is aware, the fair wage schedule applies — as she indicated earlier — only to Yukon government construction contracts.

Service contracts, such as school busing, do not come under the schedule. This is consistent with other jurisdictions in Canada having regulations governing minimum wage rates for construction projects, and it complies with the recommendation of the Employment Standards Board.

As part of the regular review process and in consultation with stakeholders, the Employment Standards Board, which is responsible for reviewing the fair wage schedule, has recommended that the schedule continue to apply only to government construction projects.

I agree with the member that school bus drivers are performing a valuable service, as she indicated, by safely transporting our students, and I recognize that these are qualified and trained professional drivers, as she indicated. I also agree that they deserve a reasonable wage for their hard work. However, this is covered under the Employment Standards Act. In addition, labour has a right to organize, and it is a traditional role of unions to negotiate compensation through the collective bargaining process. I must repeat, however, that the fair wage schedule itself applies to, as intended only to cover, government-tendered construction contracts and not government contracts in general.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not the government’s role to unfairly burden the market with excessive regulation or control, but rather to ensure minimum standards without unduly restricting the market economy’s ability to function itself.

Is the member asking the government to regulate the wages for every single contract that we tender?

To apply the schedule to every service contract would lead to increased cost to taxpayers, not to mention the government tendering process could become onerous for some participants. Further, to enforce this expansion of regulatory controls would require a government to conduct wage audits on a significant portion of Yukon contractors at all levels. Is this what the member is asking, for increased interference in the labour market and even more government red tape?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I quote from the Employment Standards Act, section 18(1) "The board may, from time to time,

(a) establish on the basis of time, the minimum wage to be paid by employers to employees; and

(b) establish the amount by which the wages of an employee may be reduced for any pay period below the minimum wage, either by deduction from wages or by payment from the employee to the employer, if board or lodging or both are furnished by or on behalf of an employer to an employee, if the arrangement is accepted by that employee."

"(2) If on the application of the director or an employer, employee, or trade union representing employees directly affected by the matter, the board considers it necessary, it may

"(a) require employers to pay employees who report for work at the call of the employer wages for any minimum number of hours as may be prescribed, whether or not the employee is called on to perform any work after so reporting for work;

"(b) also set a maximum price to be charged for the board, whether full or partial, supplied by or on behalf of an employer to an employee and a maximum deduction to be made in respect of the board from the wages of an employee by the employer;

"(c) set the maximum price to be charged for living quarters, either permanent or temporary, furnished by or on behalf of an employer to an employee, whether or not the quarters are self-contained, and whether or not the employee retains general possession and custody of them, or the maximum deduction to be made in respect of the quarters from the wages of the employee by the employer;

"(d) set the charges or deductions for furnishing uniforms or other articles of wearing apparel that an employer may require an employee to wear and require an employer in any specified circumstances to provide, maintain or launder uniforms or other articles of wearing apparel that the employer requires an employee to wear;

"(e) set the charges or deductions for furnishing any tools or equipment that an employer may require an employee to use and for the maintenance and repair of such tools or equipment;

"(f) specify the circumstances and the occupations in which persons under 17 years of age may be employed by an employer, set the conditions of that employment; and

"(g) exempt, on any terms and conditions and for any periods considered advisable, any employer from the application of section 17 in respect of any class of employees who are being trained on the job, if the training facilities provided and used by the employer are adequate to provide a training program that will increase the skill or proficiency of an employee.

"(4)  If the wages of an employee are computed and paid on a basis other than time or on a combined basis of time and some other basis, the board may, by order

(a) set a standard basis of work to which a minimum wage on a basis other than time may be applied; and

(b) set a minimum rate of wage that in its opinion is the equivalent of the minimum rate set forth in paragraph (1)(a).

"(5)  Subject to this Part, an employer shall pay to each employee who is paid on a basis other than time a wage at a rate not less than the minimum rate set by the order under subsection (4)."

Section 7 "Any order of the board made pursuant to this section shall not come into effect until it has been approved by the Commissioner in Executive Council."

"Officer’s determination of unpaid wages, section 72(1): "If an employment standards officer finds that an employer has failed to pay an employee any wages due to the employee, the employment standards officer may determine the difference between the wages actually paid to the employee and the wages to which the employee is entitled,

"if the amount of the difference is agreed to in writing by the employer and the employee, the employer shall, within three days after the date of the agreement, pay that amount to the employee or, if the director so orders, to the director who shall pay it over to the employee immediately on receipt thereof by the director.

"(2) When an employer has made payment of the wages agreed to be due in accordance with subsection (1), no prosecution for failure to pay an employee the full wages to which they were entitled under this Act shall be commenced against the employer."

Under "Investigation of complaints", "75(1)  On receiving a complaint within the time permitted under section 73, the director or an employment standards officer shall investigate the complaint.

"(2)  Despite subsection (1), the director may

"(a) refuse to investigate a complaint if the director considers that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, trivial, or has not been initiated in good faith; and

"(b) cease investigating a complaint if, in the director’s opinion, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint.

"(3)  The director may commence an investigation without receiving a complaint if the director considers it necessary to determine that the requirements of this Act are being complied with.

"(4)   On an application to the director or on the director’s own motion, the director may reconsider a decision, order, authorization, or direction made by the director and may vary or revoke the decision, order, authorization, or direction.

"For the purposes of this Act, if the director has the protection, privileges and powers of a board appointed under the Public Inquiries Act."

Reference Board, section 76, "If the director is unable to resolve a complaint made under this Act the director may refer the matter to the board for a decision."

"Wage Rates for Public Works

"105(1)  In this section,

"building construction" means the construction, remodelling and repair of buildings;

"Fair Wage Schedule" means the schedule of wage rates established by the board with the approval of the Commissioner in Executive Council;

"Government of the Yukon" includes

"(a) a corporation that is an agent of the Government of the Yukon, and

"(b) a corporation, all the members of the board of directors of which are appointed by an enactment or by the Commissioner in Executive Council and which for the discharge of their duties are, directly or indirectly, responsible to the Government of the Yukon;

"heavy construction" means such work as, but not limited to, site preparation, excavation, electric transmission lines, marine works, bridges, viaducts, tunnels, and dams;

"road, sewer, and water main construction" means clearing and preparing a right of way, excavation and subgrading, laying a granular base, grading and asphalt and concrete paving and includes

"(a) the operation of on-site plants to service the construction."

It also includes the installation of drainage, landscaping, the demolition of structures in or affected by the right-of-way and all other works involved in the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of roads, highways, streets, sidewalks, runways, airport taxi strips and airport parking aprons, and the installation, reinstallation and maintenance of sewers and water mains.

Under the Government of Yukon, if an employer has a contract, directly or indirectly with the Government of Yukon, for building construction, heavy construction or road, sewer and water main construction, the employer shall pay the employees engaged or employed in connection with the contract not less than the applicable rate set out in the fair wage schedule.

The fair wage schedule may contain rates payable to apprentices, by reference to the Apprentice Training Act, and regulations or otherwise. The board shall review the fair wage schedule at least once every three years and also whenever requested to by the minister. The purpose of the review is to consider what changes, if any, should be made to the fair wage schedule and to make them and recommend them to the Commissioner in the Executive Council.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party has proposed the following amendment to the Employment Standards Act: "The Commissioner of the Yukon Territory, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly, enacts as follows:

"(1) This Act amends the Employment Standards Act.

"(2) The Act is amended by adding the following definition to section 105(1), "school bus driving" means professional drivers safely transporting students to school

"(3) The Act is amended by inserting the words ‘bus driving’ following the words ‘building construction’ in section 105(2)

"(4) This Act comes into force on the date of assent."

Mr. Speaker, in 1984, the current Employment Standards Act replaced the Labour Standards Act of 1968. The Employment Standards Act was developed after considering existing legislation in other jurisdictions. Intervention by employers, workers, labour organizations, women’s groups and others, and the trends in the development of neighbouring jurisdictions across Canada were studied and reviewed.

The member opposite should understand the purpose of the Employment Standards Act and the purpose of the fair wages schedule. To assist toward that end, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take time to read into the record the words of a previous member of this Legislature, the hon. Mr. Tracey, when he spoke about the Employment Standards Act in 1984.

"The new Employment Standards Act will replace the current Labour Standards Act, which was enacted in 1968. Except for some minor amendments, the present legislation has not undergone significant change for the past 15 years.

"In assessing the needs for possible policy changes in the Yukon, this government reviewed its experience with existing legislation, considered in detail the intervention by employers, workers, labour organizations, women’s groups and others, and studied trends and developments in neighbouring jurisdictions across Canada. From this starting point, the policy objectives of government were defined and the principles of the new legislation set out.

"The result has been a fair and equal consideration of the employee and employer interests, in the context of Yukon’s labour force environment. Particular attention has been given to the highly seasonable characteristics of much of Yukon’s economy.

"A major change is the removal of the restrictions concerning the maximum hours of work that may be performed in a day and in a week. Former provisions placed restrictive controls on the workers and employers, whose livelihoods depend on the ability to maximize earnings through seasonal employment.

"These new provisions will be beneficial to both employee and employer and will be introduced in two stages. The first stage will be the removal of the maximum hours of work provision and the implementation of specific safeguards to prevent abuse. These safeguards include a requirement for a specific rest period of eight hours between shifts and the ability to regulate excessive hours where they are found to be detrimental to the workers’ health and safety. An employee who works for more than eight hours in a day and 40 in a week will continue to receive one and one-half times his regular rate of pay.

"An amendment will be introduced, proposing that as a second stage of this change, and effective January 1, 1985, all hours worked in excess of 12 hours in a day and 60 hours in a week, will be compensated at double the regular rate of pay. The two-stage phase of this new provision is necessary, since many employers are already into their work season or contracts and require time to complete these works and make the necessary adjustments for 1985.

"The removal of the maximum hours of work requirement, together with these new provisions, will remove some of the costly limitations placed on employers, particularly those working in isolated areas of Yukon.

"Further, it will allow seasonal employees to maximize earnings during the short summer season. Participation of women in our workforce is exceptionally high. A major aspect of government objectives in this new legislation is to remove barriers to this participation where possible, and to ensure that women working under the jurisdiction of our legislation enjoy the same advantages that have been extended to women employed in federal works and undertakings in Yukon and all women employed in other jurisdictions within Canada, other than the Northwest Territories.

"This legislation extends the right to a female worker who has at least one year’s continuous service with an employer to leave her job because of pregnancy for a period of 17 weeks without pay and to resume her employment on the expiration of that period.

"To further ensure equality in the workplace, this legislation prohibits discrimination in pay between male and female workers or vice versa, for similar work in the same establishment. Any difference in pay must be based on a factor other than the sex of the employee.

"Recognizing that labour stability is important to economic recovery and development, the legislation introduces a requirement on the part of the employer and the employee to give advance notice of termination of employment to each other. Notice will not be required under certain circumstances such as when the employer fails to abide by the terms of the employment contract or where the employee is terminated for just cause.

"The construction industry and any other undertaking of a seasonal or intermittent nature operating less than six months of the year, together with those employers and employees working under a collective agreement, will be exempt from these provisions. One week’s pay may be either paid or forfeited in lieu of the required notice.

"Recent experience has clearly demonstrated the need for a government to have advance notice of major group termination and layoffs in order to provide lead time to undertake the necessary planning to mitigate the problem and ramifications resulting from such actions. The closure of a large scale business has significant impact on the government services and revenues by reason of size.

"This notice, which is to government only, will allow for the development of new programming to compensate for closures or temporary layoffs. The legislation sets out the requirement for advance notice of group termination or a layoff beginning with four weeks’ notice on the termination of 25 employees, to 16 weeks’ notice on the termination of 300 or more employees. Advance notice of four weeks will also be required" —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Speaker:   Hon. Premier, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I find it quite a concerning that we are debating a piece of legislation here and we don’t have a quorum in this House. I don’t think that’s the correct procedure that should be followed and I think the members opposite should be attentive to this, especially the third party, which brought the bill in.

Speaker:   Member for Mayo-Tatchun, on the point of order.

Mr. Fairclough:   I believe that government has a majority in this House and should be giving word out to the rest of their MLAs to be in the House when this is debated, and I urge the Premier to urge his own colleagues to do that.

Speaker:   Firstly, there is no point of order because the hon. Premier was not in his chair when he raised the point of order, so therefore there is no point of order. Secondly, I would remind the Member for Mayo-Tatchun that it’s not proper to mention that members are in or not in the House. Carry on please.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   "Advance notice of 4 weeks will also be required when the temporary layoff of 50 or more employees is about to occur.

"As an additional move to workforce stability, the legislation introduces a degree of job protection in the event of illness or injury suffered by an employee and in the tragic event of death of an immediate family member.

"An employee will be entitled to accumulate a maximum of six days leave without pay at the rate of one day per month and will not be dismissed or laid off because of absence from work due to illness or injury if the absence does not exceed his or her accrued entitlement.

"Once the employee has used the accrued leave without pay, he or she is not eligible again until he or she has worked long enough to accrue additional benefits. In the event of the death of an immediate family member, employees will be entitled to a maximum of three days’ bereavement leave without pay.

"Moving to address the ever-changing workforce environment, the legislation recognizes the increasing number of part-time workers and extends general holiday and vacation pay benefits to this group. When part-time workers are entitled to general holiday pay, the entitlement will be established by calculating the average number of hours worked per day during the previous two weeks. The legislation reduces the number of days required for entitlement to vacation pay to 10 working days.

"Of major importance in employment standards legislation is the mechanism for the recovery of outstanding wages owed to employees. The amount of wages recovered each year in Yukon on a per capita basis is extremely high. During the past three years, approximately $259,000 in outstanding wages were recovered. During the same period, in excess of $112,000 could not be recovered. The present system of wage collection is time-consuming and inefficient. The new legislation establishes a certificate system of wage collection that is in common use in other jurisdictions. These new measures will remove wage collection procedures from the judiciary system to the greatest extent possible, thereby relieving the courts of an ever-increasing burden.

"The new provisions also provide for collection of wages under third party liability and for directors of corporations to be jointly liable for a limited extent for wages owed.

"Where a claim for wages cannot be resolved between the parties, the intervention of the director of employment standards and the evidence supported by a statutory declaration from the employee indicating that wages are owing, the director may issue a demand for wages. Then and only then, after further review, when this demand remains unresolved and the employer has been served with a copy of the employee’s statutory declaration and the employer refuses to answer yes or no to whether or not he owes the wages in question, the director may issue a wage certificate and file the certificate in the court. It then becomes a judgement of the court. Parties to the dispute may appeal the certificate initially to the employment standards board and lastly to the court. The certificate system of wage collection provides an opportunity to enter into the reciprocal agreements with neighbouring jurisdictions for the collection of wages outside Yukon.

"It then becomes a judgement of the court. Parties to the dispute may appeal the certificate initially to the Employment Standards Boards and, lastly, to the court. The certificate system of wage collection provides an opportunity to enter into reciprocal agreements with neighbouring jurisdictions for collection of wages outside of the Yukon. These measures are necessary to deal primarily with the small minority of employers who deliberately attempt to avoid payment of wages or whose insolvency renders payment of wages impossible without extraordinary measures.

"Further, in regard to wages, the legislation establishes a regular pay period of 16 consecutive days and a requirement to pay wages not later than seven days after each pay period. While recognizing this is the responsibility of government to establish employment standards that promote stability and productivity, it is the view of this government that the employer and the employee share the responsibility of maintaining good relationships in the workplace for ensuring the conditions of the workplace do not contravene legislation minimum standards.

"However, where redress is required, it is in the interest of both the employer and the employee to have access to quick and equitable solutions. Where problems in the workplace cannot be readily resolved by the employer and employee, the legislation provides for third-party intervention by the director of employment standards. In many areas of legislation, there is a provision for resolution of disputes by the director.

"This is an administrative necessity. However, in all instances where the director is given decision-making powers, there is a provision to appeal these decisions to the employment standards board. The legislation provides for establishment of that board, consisting of two representatives of employers and two representatives of labour, with an impartial chairman, to be the appeal board for decisions of orders of the director. The board will also be responsible for recommending minimum wages, from time to time.

"I have given here a brief outline of the major changes in the new legislation. There are other minor amendments and a large portion of the old act, which have been incorporated into this act, has undergone only administrative amendments.

"I will be introducing two other amendments to this bill. The first will be an amendment to section 67, to require that any document removed from the premises by an employment standards officer be returned within 72 hours. A further amendment will be proposed for section 105(1), to change the presumed date of service by certified mail to the seventh day, rather than the third.

"There will be a need to issue several regulations under this act, the principal regulations being those covered under the minimum wage and the fair wage schedule. Regulations now in effect under the old act that are not inconsistent with the new legalization will also be reissued. Examples of these are exemptions for the business of guiding and outfitting and the industries of exploration and security services."

"This government is aware that the majority of employers in Yukon provide their employees with standards equal or superior to those we are proposing. Unfortunately, however, there are employees who require the minimum protection by employment standards legislation.

"This new Employment Standards Act recognizes the important contribution of both the employee and the employer and encourages an atmosphere of responsible action and self-regulation in the relationship between these parties.

"I believe this act is a good act. Although it addresses some aspects of labour legislation that some would not want to see included and does not address other aspects that others would want to have included, I believe it is a bill that addresses all the major areas of labour legislation in a manner that will satisfy some of the unique problems of Yukon."

The fair wage schedule was created with the proclamation of the Employment Standards Act in 1985. The fair wage schedule applies to all government. It was intended to accomplish three goals: ensure that the workers employed on Yukon government construction projects received a fair wage for their labour; remove the incentive from contractors to bid on projects based on low wages; and to level the playing field between unionized and non-unionized contractors.

The fair wage schedule is divided into four categories. Category A contains occupations which are journeyman-level jobs, such as carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, et cetera. Category B contains occupations such as blasters, cement finishers, painters, et cetera. Category C contains occupations such as surveyors, surveyor helpers, truck helpers. Category D contains occupations such as labourers, roller operators, flag persons, et cetera.

The breakdown under the fair wage schedule provides a fairly detailed process. Under Category D, it breaks down into asphalt rakers, camp kitchen helpers, driller helpers, first aid attendants, pumper tender, motor person and security guards. These are just some of the examples that are included in that particular aspect.

The regulations have been amended over the years. In 1986, the fair wage regulation OIC 1986/044 clearly established the definition of "contractor" and the applicability of the fair wage schedule.

There are differences between construction jobs and the job of a bus driver. Construction in the Yukon is generally seasonal; school busing provides employment most of the year, except when the school session is out.

This is not a new issue. In 1998, the Teamsters Union, Local 31, wrote to the chair of the Employment Standards Board with respect to fair wage schedules, requesting that bus drivers be put on the fair wage schedule, because I understand the fair wage schedule was being revamped at that time.

I am aware that the NDP government considered adding bus drivers to the fair wage schedule and, Mr. Speaker, the prior NDP government chose not to do that. The bus drivers have never been included in the fair wage schedule. In fact, the fair wage schedule has always applied to building construction, heavy construction, road and sewer and water main construction.

In 1998, the Employment Standards Board recommendation was that the fair wage schedule continue to apply only to Yukon construction contracts.

Mr. Speaker, the government needs to balance the public interest when it intervenes with market controls. Governments across Canada are wrestling with the balance of interest in the effort to stimulate their respective economies.

With respect to the bill before us today, I agree with the member that school bus drivers are performing a valuable and much-needed service and do provide a very important role in ensuring the safe transportation of our students, and I recognize that these are qualified and trained professional drivers.

I also agree that they deserve a reasonable wage, as I previously indicated, for their hard work and they have been covered under the Employment Standards Act, of which I have gone through a few points here already. In addition, labour has the right to organize and I mentioned that also before.

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important that we understand that we have a lot of changes that need to be considered to ensure we have a balance — the fair wage schedule is fairly explicit, has been focused on the construction industry and all aspects of that industry, which I have already previously indicated. And I think that it’s important that we follow through on that.

With the contract issues, I would like to go over a few of those if I could: "The objectives of government contracting policy are to ensure that government contracting activities are carried out in a fair, fiscally responsible, accountable, open and competitive manner, and that they benefit Yukon residents and Yukon businesses where practicable.

"Scope

"3. These regulations apply to all contracts except:

"(a) employment contracts;

"(b) contracts relating to projects funded by the Government of the Yukon and carried out by another party under a contribution agreement for its own use; and

"(c) contracts for the practice of law as defined in the Legal Professions Act."

"Application — 4.(1) subject to the terms of any agreement between the Government of Yukon and the Government of Canada, these regulations apply to projects carried out by the Government of Yukon on behalf of the Government of Canada.

"(2) These regulations apply to all departments which have deputy heads as defined under the Public Service Act.

"Access to policy documents and related materials — 5. Reasonable access must be provided to government policy documents and related contracting materials upon request. Materials available for distribution are to be supplied in a non-discriminatory manner, and any fees charged for such distribution are to be reasonable.

"6. Prospective bidders and proponents must be registered on open source lists on request.

"7.(1) Subject to subsection (2), a prospective bidder or proponent must be given a copy of requests for bids or proposals upon request.

"(2) Where bids or proposals are invited solely for the Yukon businesses, copies of the request for bids or proposals may only be given to other Yukon businesses.

"8. Contracting authorities must encourage competition for contracts, but must respect the following:

"(a) there must be specific criteria for sole sourcing contracts and specific sourcing thresholds to determine the level of competition for price-driven contracts, value-driven contracts and goods contracts;

"(b) contracting activities must be carried out in full compliance with all applicable Yukon land claims agreements;

"(c) contracting authorities must make best efforts to contract for goods and services in the community in which they are used, to the extent that doing so reasonably conforms to the objectives of these regulations, and to the extent that their need can be met for community-based businesses.

"Contracting authorities must use standards, specifications, evaluation criteria, time limits to respond for requests for bids or proposals, standing offer agreements, contribution agreements, source lists and other means to limit unfair competition.

"Evaluation criteria and standards used to evaluate bids and proposals must be fully and clearly described in requests for bids or proposals and only those evaluation criteria and standards must be used to evaluate bid proposals received.

"Subject to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, bidders and proponents must on request be given access to information about their own bids or proposals and how they were evaluated within a reasonable time at the procurement of the competition.

"If there is a formal bid challenge mechanism, based on the following terms, it must be followed. Bidders and proponents must be given a reasonable opportunity to register complaints. Complainants must have the responsibility to make a reasonable attempt to settle their disputes with the applicable contracting authority. There must be an opportunity to redress, including compensation for costs of complaining and bid proposal preparation costs. A mechanism to change, where warranted, government contracting policies and procedures will be provided. This part applies only to contracts for a public work.

Claims made to unpaid subcontractors, a deputy head, Department of Department of Highways and Public Works or a delegate must receive a claim for unpaid labour, material, equipment or services filed by a subcontractor on the contract for public work who has not been paid by a contractor for labour, material, equipment, or services rendered to the contractor for that contract.

"(2) The Deputy Head, Department of Highways and Public Works, or delegate shall process a claim pursuant to subsection (1) provided the claim is made after the payment for the labour, material, equipment, or services under his or her contract with the contractor becomes due, but not later than 90 days following the performance of the labour or services or the provision of the material or equipment, as the case may be, by the subcontractor."

When processing a claim, "15. (1) The Deputy Head, Department of Highways and Public Works, or delegate must notify the contractor a