Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, May 12, 1995 - 1:30 p.m.

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

Prayers

Recognition of Law Day

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I rise in the House today to bring Law Day to the Members' attention. Law Day is a nationwide event organized by the Canadian Bar Association to educate the general public about their legal rights and about the various organizations that make up the legal system. Law Day was first held in 1982 to celebrate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This year, the general theme of Law Day across Canada is "access to justice". In the Yukon, Law Day activities are placing a special emphasis on community policing, in order to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the RCMP in the territory.

Many people are volunteering their time to organize the numerous fun and interesting events being held today. I would like to encourage everyone to participate in the events.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Phillips: While I am on my feet, I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome the very first group tour that has come to the Yukon and welcome the elder hostel participants who are visiting the Yukon as part of the Trail of '98 program. This program is taking place in conjunction with the State of Alaska. There are 41 people taking part here today. They have been through our executive offices, and we have spoken with them briefly. They come from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and from all over the United States. I know that all Members would like to join me in wishing them a warm welcome to the House.

Applause

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have two legislative returns for tabling.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I have two legislative returns for tabling.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Are there any Petitions?

Are there any Bills to be introduced?

Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Health care, visits to doctors

Ms. Commodore: My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. It has to do with the parents of a nine month old baby, who was sick with a fever and experienced a seizure in the middle of the night. The parents took the child to a nursing station at 4:00 a.m. in the morning, and were asked to return later that morning. Instead, the parents chose to drive to Whitehorse. At the top of the Two Mile Hill, the baby experienced another seizure. She was examined and diagnosed by a doctor in outpatients, kept for observation for one-half hour and released.

The parents felt the baby's condition was still serious and wanted to seek a second opinion. At a medical clinic in town, they were told that they were only allowed to see one doctor a day. Can the Minister confirm that this is the official policy of our health care system?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I cannot confirm or deny it. There has been no change to the policy since this government has been in office.

Ms. Commodore: The same parent insisted that the baby be examined by another doctor and, 12 hours after the visit to the community health centre, the baby was seen by another doctor, and was given the same diagnosis. The parents then left. I would like to ask the Minister if he considers it fair treatment that, under our health system, it took 12 hours to get a second opinion.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: It is the first that I have heard about these allegations. Of course, many of the allegations embodying the preamble to the questions of the Members opposite in recent days have turned out to be quite false. I will have to check into it and get back to her.

Ms. Commodore: I am very disappointed in this Minister when we ask serious health questions in this House and he completely ignores them or makes fun of them.

Following that 4 p.m. appointment, the couple headed home. Thirty minutes out of town, the baby suffered another seizure. They rushed back to town and returned to outpatients. The baby was seen by another doctor and, finally, was admitted under the care of yet another doctor.

This First Nations couple feel that they have a right to a second opinion. They feel that they were not listened to. They are frustrated about having to see three doctors before their baby was admitted. By the end of the day, there will have been five doctors involved, plus the nurse at the community centre. I would like to ask the Minister if he will investigate the matter to determine if the family was given fair treatment.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Of course, I would be happy to. Normally, the procedure, as the Member well knows, is to contact or communicate with me or with the Yukon Medical Association, so that the matter can be acted on. I am absolutely flabbergasted that she feels that it is the type of issue that should be raised in Question Period.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Phelps: She asked whether it is serious enough. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not she really feels that it is in the best interest of resolving the issue to simply spring it in Question Period in this way.

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order.

Question re: Hospital Act, proposed amendments

Mr. Penikett: I fear the Minister opposite is flabbergasted by any outbreak in democracy.

Let me ask the Minister if he could explain his letter, addressed to certain persons - but, significantly, not legislators - in which he says, "In order to facilitate the transfer of the Thomson Centre to the Yukon Hospital Corporation, I intend to bring forward, in this legislative session, amendments to the Hospital Act." Can I ask the Minister if, prior to sending this letter, he engaged in any formal prior consultations with any of the interests that might be affected by the measure he is contemplating?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: The only person who is really bewildered by an outbreak of democracy in these Chambers, I suspect, is the Member who just spoke, because of course the last outbreak of democracy experienced in the Yukon was when the NDP were thrown out of office. That really shook them up.

The issue regarding changes to the Hospital Act centres on our desire to see the Thomson Centre and Macaulay Lodge come under the auspices of the hospital board and to look at phase 2 of the health transfer coming under the board. We have discussed this many times in these Chambers during this lengthy session.

Yes, we have had verbal communications. We have sent documentation to First Nations and other stakeholders. A lot of consultation has either taken place or is taking place.

Mr. Penikett: I am sure democracy will have another day very soon.

Since the Minister has not told the Legislature that he intends to bring in this bill in this session - it was not even on the list of bills provided recently by the House Leader - and since the Minister says in his letter that this legislation anticipates the completion of the phase 2 transfer of community health programs, can he explain why he has prepared legislation in advance of the completion of those negotiations? Does he not recognize that he is now being criticized by First Nations for prejudging the conclusion of those very negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I am always somewhat taken aback when the person who just spoke, or others in his caucus, take it upon themselves to be the official spokesperson for all First Nations in the Yukon. That is just not the case. The election results in the last election would verify that in spades. In fact, the Member himself was criticized strenuously and vigorously at the general assembly of First Nations just prior to the ill-fated election. From his point of view it was ill-fated. The proposed changes are merely enabling words - they do not prejudge anything - enabling the hospital board to take on responsibilities under phase 2. They in no way detail those responsibilities, or prejudge any negotiations.

Mr. Penikett: The significant difference between me and the Minister is that I only speak for First Nations when I am asked to do so. In his letter, the Minister indicates that there will be an additional position on the board appointed from the general public. Can I ask him if he intends to make any specific provision in these new arrangements, which will cover the governance, not only in an acute care hospital, but also a continuing care program including extended care for seniors, and also a rehab program for injured workers, to include representatives from either senior citizens, Alzheimers groups, or injured workers on his board, or had that not occurred to him?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: We are certainly looking at two additional members. One would be appointed on the recommendation of First Nations; the other would be appointed by the Minister. The Minister would look at those and other important groups to determine which people may be asked to serve on the hospital board.

Question re: Health services, FAS/FAE support services

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the same Minister on the health care system. During the budget debate, the Minister was asked to describe which issues were outstanding or under discussion between his department, on the one hand, and the Yukon Medical Association and the Yukon Health and Social Services Council, on the other hand. The Minister provided a list of issues and copies of minutes from the Yukon Health and Social Services Council. I refer him to the minutes of the December meeting.

There is an entry under the heading FAS/FAE: "The Minister advised council that the development of programs to assist people living with FAS/FAE is currently at a preliminary stage."

A review of the documents that were tabled a short while ago - the alcohol and drug strategy implementation plan overview and the FAS prevention plan - indicates that there was a passing reference to existing and supporting services in a book that was put out advising families of these services, but the minutes of the council suggest that there was something more going on.

The question I have for the Minister is this: are there additional FAS family support programs being examined by his department?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have stated over and over again, here and elsewhere, that we view the FAS/FAE policy development in two different categories. One is prevention, which was logically part of, and announced with, the alcohol and drug strategy. The other policy development will be part of the Kids at Risk program. Some of those initiatives have come to fruition and been implemented; others are still being examined. One of the areas being examined, now that we have the alcohol and drug strategy and implementation plan tabled, as well as the FAS/FAE plan tabled - which are both being implemented - is a review of everything being done for children with FAS and their families to see what improvements can be made.

However, it goes beyond that. We have also indicated a keen interest in finding out how many adults in our criminal system, particularly repeat offenders, have FAS, and we have an interest in working with both adult education and Yukon College, as well as with the Department of Justice, in dealing with those problems. We feel there may be partial solutions to the dilemma those people are in that deserve further policy development.

I am sorry to be so long with this answer but, given the lengthy preamble to the question, I knew the Member would be satisfied with nothing less than a very thorough and positive response.

Mr. Cable: Unfortunately, we did not get any answer at all.

When will the Minister be making a decision on the extension of the family support programs for FAS families?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: The issue is now near the top of the list of priorities. It will be tackled by policy people in our department and we will be having discussions, on an inter-agency basis, with those other groups who have an interest in the adult aspects. We will be bringing policies forward, in due course, for Cabinet approval. I would hope that we would be bringing that package forward in the early fall.

Mr. Cable: One of the other entries in the December minutes of the Health and Social Services Council indicates that the department will provide the council with available information on alternative health care models, both preventive and ameliorative, following which the council will provide comments to the Minister on this topic.

Are we to understand from this that the Minister and his department are actively considering alternative health care models?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: We would be certainly somewhat negligent if we were to ignore alternative health care models and in particular, health care delivery models. We had a lengthy discussion, for example, on the issue of using professionals other than doctors for certain types of health care. Certainly, nurse practitioners is one area that the government is keenly interested in. The government is also interested in the development of some of the health centres to provide more services than are currently provided under the federal government and, at the same time, we are looking at changes to the health care system in other jurisdictions, and particularly Canada, with a view to making disease prevention and healthier lifestyles one of the goals of the department.

Question re: Division Mountain coal project

Mr. McDonald: I have a question for either the Government Leader or the Minister of Economic Development. The Simons report on coal-fired power generation in the Yukon was recently released, and Cash Resources, of Division Mountain coal fame, is reported to be interpreting the report as saying that electricity from a coal-fired plant is viable for the Yukon. Does either Minister agree with this interpretation of the report?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: As the Member opposite has indicated, I believe that is also my interpretation of what the Simons report says - it is a viable alternative and should be investigated.

Mr. McDonald: The report itself goes to some length to say that it does not address the costs or availability of coal, the transmission line costs, or road access costs, and it does not even provide a per-kilowatt-hour estimated cost for electricity. Given that it has already ensured that its report is not interpreted as being a final vote of confidence in coal-fired electrical generation, what does the government plan to do to reassure itself of the viability of the coal-fired electrical generation alternative?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The Member is quite right. The report states quite clearly that it is not a feasibility study. The costs of coal would have to be factored in and more accurate figures obtained than those we have right now. We also need to get an accurate projection of the future demands of electricity in theYukon.

Having said all that, that is exactly what Yukon Energy Corporation is doing now. Projections are being done on no growth, low growth, medium-term growth and the top end, the potential high growth. We can then see if a 20- or 50-megawatt plant is what is required now. Then we can move into the cost of developing such a plant and the cost of bringing it onstream.

Mr. McDonald: Could the Minister tell us whether or not the government is prepared to do a very tight risk analysis of the coal-fired electrical generation alternative and have that made public prior to making a decision to proceed to the next step, which would involve some commitments to the company, and if the government is prepared to do that could he tell us when the government expects that this project will proceed to the next step?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I am not certain if I understand what the Member means by "a risk analysis". I do not know if he is talking about a feasibility study or something else. We are not going into something dramatically new here. Ninety-two percent of the power in Alberta is provided by coal-fired electrical generation. Many of the provinces across the country have the bulk of their electricity produced by coal-fired electrical generation, so we are not going into totally unknown fields here. There is a lot of information available and there is no doubt that, if and when the decision is made to go ahead with it, we will have to get some accurate costs to see whether it will be done under the non-utility generator policy, whether YEC is going to come forward with a proposal to do it itself, or what route we will take.

Question re: Contingency fund

Mr. McDonald: I can only hope that the decision will be made when the Legislature is sitting, so that at least there is some scrutiny here.

The Government Leader confirmed yesterday that the government is indeed in the process of spending the $8 million contingency fund that is identified in the main estimates budget, but resisted telling us what the projects were that were to be funded. I must say that most of us were rather startled about that news, as we have spent weeks studying a budget that is already being changed.

Can the Minister tell us what the government is already spending the $8 million on, so that we can pass comment on it?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I thank the Member for that question because I wanted to clear the record. I misunderstood the Member's question yesterday. I thought he was asking about last year's excess funding and what we are now doing with it.

In the budget debate, we quite clearly set out the areas where we thought the $8 million that is identified as "contingency" would possibly be needed.

It has not changed. We are only 11 days into this year, and there has been no commitment made for that $8 million at this point.

Mr. McDonald: Given that, last year, we were still debating the budget and the government was already spending money that was not budgeted, can the Minister give us the commitment that he will let us know when Cabinet or Management Board commits any of that $8 million contingency and would he commit to amending the budget if he does so at a time when we are debating it?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We have already spent about 60 days debating the budget. Unless we are planning to make a decision in the very near future, I would hope that we are not going to be another 60 days debating the balance of the budget, because there is still a lot of legislation on the Order Paper that must be dealt with. At some point, I would think that the Opposition would quit dragging its feet and get on with the business of the Legislature.

The issue the Member speaks about is what supplementary budgets are for.

Mr. McDonald: The business of the Legislature is to approve spending proposals made by Cabinet, or not. It is not the right of the Cabinet to simply spend money wherever it wishes, whenever it wishes. It is not appropriate for Cabinet to be spending money that it has said is going to be sitting on the sidelines.

The fiscal year is over. I know the Minister has a ball-park figure now of what will lapse from last year in the spending estimates. What does the Minister expect will lapse from the fiscal year 1994-95?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The critic is a former Finance Minister who spent over $64 million that he never even had.

It is far too early to be coming out with figures on the year-end spending. The Member opposite knows full well that those figures are not available until late May or early June.

Question re: Campbell Highway

Mr. Harding: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services about the Campbell Highway.

There has been precious little capital work done on this highway for three construction seasons, and the 1995-96 budget does not even have enough capital works money in it to chipseal a driveway. We are going to have ore trucks shipping ore from the Faro mine in the fall. The company has moved the production date ahead to August 1.

I have asked the Minister about this issue many times. Has the government reconsidered this matter, and thought about putting more money into capital upgrading on the Campbell Highway, as I have recommended?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: In the first place, it is under operation and maintenance that we would be doing it, as the road is already there. Yes, there is money to look after some of it. We have also had talks with the people at the mine and they are quite satisfied with the road the way it is right now.

Mr. Harding: I am not too sure about that. The Minister seems to have the impression that the only work that can be done on the highway is operation and maintenance work. There has been capital upgrading work done on that highway, and there is a lot more that has to be done.

I would like to ask the Minister, given the resolution that was recently passed by the Association of Yukon Communities, which called for an extensive capital upgrading project on that highway, if he will reconsider his decision of folly and come up with a capital upgrading project to improve that highway.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The budget has been passed, and it will remain as it is.

Mr. Harding: This budget has not been passed yet; we are still debating it. I do not know what the Minister is talking about.

We were just talking about an $8 million contingency slush fund that this government has. One project that would have some substantive benefit to improve the safety and comfort of people who use the highway, and to reduce the costs to industrial users, would be to have a solid capital upgrading project done on the highway. Will the government heed what the Association of Yukon Communities and many people in the public have asked for, and reconsider its decision not to do any capital upgrading for the third consecutive construction season?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: My part of the budget has been passed, and it will remain that way. If the highway needs upgrading, we will have to find the money to do it.

Question re: Campbell Highway

Mr. Harding: The budget has not been passed. We did not vote for the Minister of Community and Transportation Service's budget, I can assure him of that. Let me ask about another highway that he has done some serious damage to. People are still complaining to me in Faro, Ross River, and Watson Lake about the condition of the South Campbell Highway, on which the Tuchitua camp was closed by the Minister. This weekend I drove that highway. It was in an absolutely treacherous condition, due to lack of winter maintenance on the highway, and there had been no wing blading done early enough to get the snow off the road.

I would like to ask the Minister this question: will he reconsider this decision next year, and leave that highway camp year-round, so that the road is not destroyed?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: If the traffic builds, we will continue to keep the road open in the winter. We certainly are not going to keep it open in the winter for 10 or 15 cars a day.

Mr. Harding: That road is not safe, nor is it in good condition. Yukoners deserve a certain level of service in the rural communities. The world does not begin and end in Whitehorse, for the Minister's information. There are people who live in those communities and who are upset about this road being closed.

At the Association of Yukon Communities meeting, again they passed a resolution calling for the year-round opening of that camp. I ask the Minister again: will he reconsider and will he reopen that camp on a year-round basis, as many Yukoners have called for?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: The road was not closed all winter. It was not closed for one day. The trucking people who come from Watson Lake and from down south say that the road has been in good shape. As I have said, we will consider it, if the traffic increases.

Mr. Harding: These Ministers should get out of their ivory tower. I drove that highway this week, and it was in absolutely treacherous condition. People were crawling along at a snail's pace. A lot of the truckers whom I spoke with were not even using the highway this winter, because of the condition of it.

The highway, as I saw it this weekend, was cracking. The shoulders were falling. There was not enough snow removal done this winter. There was not an early enough wing blading done on the highway to remove the snow buildup. The road is in bad shape. How much is it going to cost to make up for the damage that has been done to that highway, in increased maintenance costs, to put it back into reasonable shape?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I wish that the Member for Faro would give a list of the truckers who are not using the highway. I have not received one complaint for over three months about that highway. I wonder if the gentleman is even driving the same road.

Question re: Board and committees, cost to taxpayers

Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Government Leader about boards and committees. This government has over 70 boards and committees, some with legislated mandates and others who act in an advisory capacity to the government and government members. The cost to the taxpayer is substantial for the size of our population and government. Aside from the controversial debates in this House about political patronage appointments to the boards and committees, for the last couple of years I have been trying to get, from the Government Leader, the cost to Yukon taxpayers of the boards and committees. I would like to ask the Government Leader why he is not bringing this information back to the House?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: As the Member pointed out, what she is asking for requires a lot of information to be gathered. Boards and committees are not handled out of one part of one department. They are scattered across government. The Member is quite right that there are a lot of them, and there will be a lot more with the settlement of land claims.

Mrs. Firth: The Government Leader whines about our being here for 60 days debating the budget, but three months ago he promised to bring me this information. I started asking him about this two years ago, and he promised to bring me the information. There is a person assigned to look after boards and committees.

I have a list of five boards and committees that cost almost $500,000. The last time we discussed boards and committees, we were told the cost could be well over $1 million.

When is the Government Leader going to tell Yukoners how much it costs them out of their pockets to pay for all the boards and committees the government has?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I believe that figure has been public. I know it was released at about the time we took over government. I believe it was calculated to cost around $800,000 then for boards and committees.

I have no difficulty standing here and saying that it costs less now than it did when we took over government.

Mrs. Firth: The Government Leader has a chance to do that. Why does he not put his money where his mouth is? Why do we not have the numbers? Why does he not bring the figures into the Legislature?

A big election promise was that his government was going to tighten up the cost of everything.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mrs. Firth: The Government Leader says it is.

He said that the government was going to cost less under this administration. The Government Leader's promise was to get government costs under control. His promise was to make information accessible to the public. Either he did not know what he was talking about during the election campaign, or he just does not want Yukoners to know how much all these boards and committees cost. Which is it?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mrs. Firth: Some Members say that both statements are true. Which is it?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: It is quite clear that the Member for Riverdale South does not know what she is talking about, but that is not a surprise to us because the same thing happens every time she gets up. She makes allegations that are totally unfounded. She has no information; she does no research, and she just goes on with a long preamble and makes all sorts of allegations.

This government has brought in three balanced budgets. We have controlled the cost of the operation and maintenance of government. We have shown that we can operate government in a fiscally responsible manner, and we will continue to do so.

Question re: Boards and committees, cost to taxpayers

Mrs. Firth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I need a new question.

Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, a two-year period of expenditures, $361,297.54; Women's Directorate, $14,500; Renewable Resources, fish and wildlife, $188,360; Yukon Recreation Advisory Committee, $13,760; Executive Council Office, two boards: one for $42,464; the other for $84,531. I could go on and on.

I have done my homework; I have done my research. Maybe the Minister could cough up his homework and research.

The Government Leader promised this information a long time ago. He complains about how long we are here debating the budget. We are going to be here until we get the information. Why does he not want Yukoners to know how much his government spends per year on boards and committees?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I guess we will all have stories to tell our children about how we spent our summer holidays in the Yukon Legislature.

The Member opposite gets up and, in one breath, asks for the cost of boards and committees, and then she gets up on a new question and starts rattling off the costs. She has them already and yet she is still asking for them - she is notorious for that.

Mrs. Firth: We do not have all the costs. I have never been able to get the total costs from this government. It gives out little bits of information; it feeds us little bits of information that it thinks we should have. Yukoners have a right to know this. They have a right to know how much this government is spending on boards and committees. It is not secret.

The government wants its budget passed; it wants to make the claims that it is costing less now than it was before with the previous government. Well, show us. Bring the information forward.

When is the Government Leader going to bring this information forward?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I will check on it. When it is ready, I will bring it forward. It is a lot of work.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister has been told before. Am I going to have that information in this sitting of this Legislature? The Government Leader does not know.

Has the Government Leader even instructed anyone to compile this information? Has he given direction to his officials to gather the information, because three months ago he promised the information and it still is not here.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Maybe the Member opposite would like to release some of her research staff to give us a hand.

Question re: Health care, alternative models

Mr. Cable: It must be a full moon.

During the first round of questions, I asked the Minister of Health and Social Services about issues under discussion between the government, the Yukon Medical Association and the Health and Social Services Council.

One of the questions that I asked was about alternative health care models. Has the department provided those alternative health care models to the Health and Social Services Council yet?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: By golly, when I advised the Member that these minutes from the Health and Social Services Council were available to the public and, when I helped the Member obtain a copy of these minutes, I did not realize I would be giving him this treasure chest of zingers for Question Period. Boy, I am in for it now; I am going to be under increasing pressure because of that.

There has not been any alternative health models presented to the Health and Social Services Council, but we are certainly going to be examining alternative models and, indeed, when I released the instruction priorities by way of a letter to the deputy minister, one of the areas that we are canvassing has to do with a strategic plan for the health part of the portfolio.

Mr. Cable: Here is another zinger for the Minister.

When he gets this all together and he has reconstructed the world, is he going to present the alternative health care models to the public at the same as they are presented to the council?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Not only has the Member got zingers, but he is becoming quite cruel in the way he asks the questions. He must be taking lessons from the nice young lady who sits behind him.

We are quite happy to release public information to the public and even when it is -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: The young lady behind is well known for her quacking in the House; she is quacking again. She needs a little attention. I guess she has not received enough media attention lately, despite all of the misleading questions she has been raising in the House. So, a little quacking will do. We are always happy to hear it because it reminds us of the fall, and we might be out of here by the fall - hunting season.

The information we provide to the Health and Social Services Council is made available to the public in the council's minutes, unless it is information that we are asking it to keep confidential. The only time we do that is when we ask the council to have a look at some of the things that the Minister is taking to Cabinet, so that they can have input into the policies before they finally go before Cabinet.

Mr. Cable: On the list the Minister provided, relating to the Joint Management Committee with the Yukon Medical Association, there is an entry described as "de-insuring of medical services". Could the Minister advise us about the status of the discussions on that particular issue?

Speaker: Before the Minister answers the question, I would like to remind him that a reply to a question should be as brief as possible and relevant to the question.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: That is a very, very tough ruling for me to abide by, since most of the questions we are getting these days from the side opposite are totally irrelevant. I will certainly try to respond relevant to the questions no matter how irrelevant and irreverent the questions may seem.

The item that the Member referred to is the subject matter of some ongoing discussion. Some of the services that used to be policies and programs under the auspices of insured health care have been moved to the Health Act. One of them, for example, is the chronic care program, which is not an insured service.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I move the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a brief recess.

Recess

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

Bill No. 3 -Third Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued

Department of Renewable Resources - continued

Chair: Is there further general debate on Bill No. 3, Department of Renewable Resources?

Mr. Cable: I thank the Minister for the prompt legislative returns on two of the matters that were asked about yesterday. It is a lot of action.

I had a conversation about some questions I asked him yesterday on the circumpolar agricultural organization. I was wondering if the Minister has had a chance to check into that matter. I know we were not communicating yesterday, but I believe that his department has, in fact, done some leg work on the organization.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do have a note on it and I will just read it into the record, rather than try to paraphrase it: "

The association was first discussed at the first circumpolar agricultural conference held here in Whitehorse in 1992. The association was formed in 1995, following a meeting of the international board of advisors in Norway, dated September 1994.

Dave Beckman, who is our director of agriculture, attended the meeting as a member of the board.

"The association is a non-governmental organization, as understood by the United Nations definition. The membership consists of individual members, institutions, universities, national or sub-national organizations, companies, et cetera, affiliated members and honorary members.

"The second circumpolar agricultural conference will be held in Norway in September 1995. The Circumpolar Agricultural Association will elect an executive to replace the current IBA.

"The executive will evaluate bid offers to host the next agricultural conference in 1998. It is also proposed that a permanent secretariat be established to assist in future conference coordination with the host country and act as a central information storehouse for agricultural research and issues.

"The individuals who coordinated the first circumpolar agricultural conference in Whitehorse in 1992, through the Yukon Agricultural Association, may be submitting a proposal to act as the secretariat for the association. This is still in the discussion stages, internally, at the YAA. The director of the agriculture branch has been briefed by the Yukon Agricultural Association and is assisting the association as an advisor."

Mr. Cable: I think it is the secretariat that is of the most interest, and that, I gather, is in part an information dissemination organization relating to northern agriculture.

I think the Minister has indicated that his director of agriculture and members of the agricultural community are working on this.

Does the Minister support the proposition that the Yukon government or the Yukon agricultural community should make a bid to have the secretariat brought to the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I would not have a problem with it being brought to the Yukon, but, again, we have to ask what the cost would be. This is a non-government organization.

While we do not have a proposal yet, there is one from the Yukon Agricultural Association to act as secretariat to it. That might be a very good move for the Yukon Agricultural Association.

Mr. Cable: Have there been preliminary cost estimates made on obtaining and operating the secretariat?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We have not seen a proposal from Yukon Agricultural Association. We sent the director of agriculture to Norway, and my understanding is that he will again attend the conference in Norway in September. We will cover the costs for employee travel.

Mr. Cable: Just so that we can get a signal on the government's intentions, is the Minister and his government prepared to financially support the establishment and operation of a secretariat?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We do not have monies budgeted for it, and we have not received a proposal at all. We would have to look at the benefit for the Yukon and for Yukoners and determine if the benefit warranted a line item in the budget to support it.

Mr. Cable: I will take that comment to indicate that the Minister's mind is open on that issue, and that will be passed along.

On another topic - fish farming - I gather there is a mixed jurisdiction in the Yukon - fish farms of the sort that are up the Fish Lake Road. Can the Minister indicate where his department has jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The Member is aware that the Yukon government is responsible for, and has jurisdiction over, freshwater fishery. The federal government - the Department of Fisheries and Oceans - has jurisdiction over salmon. It becomes a bit complicated.

All fish stock in the Yukon for aquaculture purposes is reviewed and approved by the Federal/Territorial Fish Transplant Committee, which consists of people from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and from our own Department of Renewable Resources.

Mr. Cable: Who actually controls the roe of saltwater fish and the propagation of fish from the roe that is created in the fish farms, and who actually controls additional opportunities for more fish farming of freshwater fish? Is that a responsibility of the Minister's department?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The Yukon government controls fish farming in the Yukon, although we currently have no legislation or regulation relevant to that. Apparently aquaculture development guidelines will be developed in conjunction with the industry. I believe we are in the process of developing those guidelines.

Right now, the importation of live fish into the Yukon - like fingerlings - is limited to rainbow trout, and they have to be from a certified, disease-free facility. I have no information on what happens with eggs, but I assume there would be a similar requirement.

Mr. Cable: There was an article in the paper recently about the fish farmers fleeing south from B.C. because of what they thought was an unfavourable, or impenetrable, regulatory regime. I know that, as the offshore stocks are being depleted, the coastal provinces are putting more emphasis on fish farms.

What is the process with respect to these aquaculture guidelines? Has the Minister determined what the First Nations position is on this? Will he put these guidelines to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Anything to do with wildlife has to go to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. That is a requirement. This is very, very new, and there are no current guidelines or regulations. Some of the things that we would look at would be - I am just going by a note here - the location, size, spacing and design of the facilities; the reporting requirements; performance and financial standards and qualifications; fish health provisions, in addition to those in federal legislation; conservation and protection of freshwater species, and the use of medication.

Mr. Cable: I know the Minister's government has taken a posture on game farming and, assumedly, it thinks there is a future for that element of agriculture. What is this government's posture on fish farming? Does the Minister see that his department would give some assistance to fish farmers, or help to develop the industry? What does the Minister see as the future of the industry in the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Personally, I feel that fish farming could be a very good industry for the Yukon Territory. I do not know if the Member opposite has had the chance to go through the Polar Seas facility on Fish Lake Road, but - because of the water quality, and so on - this is a very, very successful operation. The char that is being raised there are marketed around the world. It is a very, very good operation. I think that could be expanded - not necessarily that facility, but I think that there could be other species, such as rainbow trout, for instance, that could certainly fit our local markets.

I think the Member was asking me if the government would be interested in helping to fund the fish farming industry. Our government does not believe that grants are the things we should be getting involved with. However, we would be interested in talking to people about infrastructure, availability of land, and that sort of thing. Also, I think it is the government's responsibility, through our agriculture branch, or our fisheries people - I am not sure who would handle aquaculture - to collect and disseminate information to people who may be interested in such an industry.

Mr. Cable: I would agree with the Minister. Looking at the future of the industry would be a very useful role for the government. Is the Minister prepared to put this issue either to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board or have his staff look at the future of the industry to see if it has some economic potential for the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I certainly would not have a problem, but we have not had any expressions of interest, other than Polar Seas. There have been some inquiries, I believe, but there has not been a lot of interest expressed.

The Fish and Wildlife Management Board is going to have its plate full for the next while, but it is certainly something for which we would like to establish some guidelines, by way of regulation I suppose, if there is interest in establishing more than just the one farm that we have now.

Mr. Cable: One of the factors that sometimes discourages people entering new business sectors is the lack of a clear regulatory regime. When does the Minister feel that these guidelines, which assumedly will lead to regulations, will be in place?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Again, we need some indication from people interested in getting into the industry. We do not have a draft of the guidelines. We have not been doing much work on them at all, so until we get an expression of interest I do not think we are going to make them a priority. If we do get an expression of interest, certainly we would be willing to look at it.

Mr. Cable: Have the Minister or his officials identified any problems that would stand in the way of this business being developed?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not know. There is an awful lot to fish farming that I know virtually nothing about, but the use of fresh water and then the discharge into some sort of a receiving body is a concern. That is why we have a requirement now to only allow fingerlings in from disease-free hatcheries. I would expect that that would be one of our greater concerns. I believe the Water Board has to approve the establishment of a fish farm. Things such as disease, and the possibility of disease getting into the regular streams in the Yukon would be one of the issues that we would be concerned about.

Mr. Cable: On another topic - the wilderness adventure travel business - there have been some questions asked in Question Period of the Minister of Tourism. What department does the Minister see will eventually regulate this business? Will it be his department or the Tourism department - if regulations are brought in at some juncture?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: My understanding is that wilderness tourism would likely come under the Parks Act. That is the only mechanism we have right now for controlling it.

Mr. Cable: Is the Minister's department involved in the licensing discussions that are going on between the industry and Tourism?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, we are.

Mr. Cable: There were some questions asked in Question Period about the umbrella final agreement obligations with respect to river control. I think those are permissive sections, as I read them - if the people involved feel that certain rivers are overused, the umbrella final agreement can be triggered. Where does the Minister see this going? On the control of the wilderness adventure travel market, does the Minister see that there will be many rivers brought under the control of the government through the umbrella final agreement provisions?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The First Nations are involved in any management planning that takes place.

I think that the Member opposite is aware that the Tatshenshini has a set number of trips allowed on it each year. There are three jurisdictions involved in the use of that river: Alaska, Yukon and British Columbia.

The Champagne-Aishihik First Nations are allocated a certain number - I cannot remember what that number is - out of the number of commercial trips allowed, which I think is 24, in addition to the First Nations' trips. The First Nations are allocated so many trips.

Apparently, the Inuvialuit have some influence on the Firth River, and there are a certain number of trips allocated to it on that river, but no other river in Yukon is currently regulated, if you will, on the number of wilderness tours that can be made on it.

The First Nations may, through their final agreements, make some reference or request about a river that may be a traditional river in their particular area. However, there has not been any of that so far.

Mr. Penikett: First of all, I would like to ask a question, which is supplementary to one asked by Mr. Cable a day or two ago. It was so long ago the Minister may have forgotten it, but it concerned the Environment Act and the process that the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment is taking to consider something other than the tinkering commitments recommended or sent to it by the government.

I have a number of concerns about this process, some of which I articulated earlier. The Minister may recall that a number of us on this side of the House took offence to the mandate letter sent from the Government Leader to the chair of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, telling them that they should do a very limited consultation about the proposed amendments and not to let the Opposition see it, because we would just say that the bill is being gutted and not to spend too much money or take too much time. My reading of the Environment Act indicates that it clearly contemplates a thorough public discussion of any substantial changes. I guess there was some debate about how substantial the changes being proposed by the government were.

After the initial attempt to freeze us out of the process, we were given briefings, not by government officials, but by others who were knowledgeable about the act. I think the Minister did, at some point, send us the copies of the proposed changes.

The Minister will also recall that a number of us were quite concerned when the Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution demanding wholesale amendments to the bill - not that the Chamber of Commerce should not do so; it is perfectly within its rights - but the government seemed to move very quickly to accommodate it. I admit that the changes sent to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment did not seem to carry out the narrow agenda of the Chamber of Commerce; however, we hear from news reports that, once the council was seized of this matter, they decided themselves to pursue an agenda beyond that suggested by the government. I encourage the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment to have wide discussions on any issue, but I am deeply concerned that the council, without any real public discussion, may propose major amendments to the Environment Act and then go to Cabinet, whereby some procedure may result that would see them rammed through the Legislature without either proper debate here or among the public.

Following up on the Liberal Leader's questions, I would like to ask the Minister if he could be a little more clear about the nature and the import of the recommendations that YCEE has added, in terms of changes to the Environment Act, and exactly what process the Minister will be recommending. I am not asking him to tell us what Cabinet may or may not say; I am asking what process the Minister will be recommending to deal with them if they are something more than the minor textual changes which, I think, originally came from the department.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I have not seen the report, but after our discussion the other day I did refer to the act. The Member is correct that the report is open to the public. I have actually spoken to the Government Leader and the report will be tabled. Interestingly enough, neither the Government Leader nor I have received a copy of the report yet. I thought that I had possibly received a copy and had forgotten about it but in fact I have not received it. It has been referred to the Department of Renewable Resources and the department will be coming up with some recommendations that will go to Cabinet.

I understand from the report - not from the information I have received from my officials - that if there are going to be substantive changes - in fact some that they may very well recommend that we do - there should be a full consultation process. I would certainly support that concept.

Mr. Penikett: The question may come down to who defines what as substantive. I am not casting doubts on the integrity of the people in the department at all, but I do think it would be very useful for Members of the House to get a copy of that report as soon as possible.

I think it would also be useful if the Minister could commit to giving us the opportunity to have a look at the briefs submitted by various organizations to YCEE on the Environment Act, so that we may know the full range of opinion that is being offered to YCEE and exactly what provoked the council to go beyond the mandate sent to them by the Government Leader.

Again, I emphasis that I am not objecting to the matter of having a wide discussion; I would just like to know what triggered it.

Can the Minister indicate to us not only when the report, but also when the briefs that were submitted to YCE by the organizations might be available to us?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: With respect to the briefs, I would have to talk to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. I expect the people who put the briefs forward would also have to provide their permission for us to circulate them publicly. I can talk to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment about that.

The other question was with respect to when the report would be made available. The department has a draft report and is making some recommendations to Cabinet. I expect we will receive a final report, with recommendations. Following Cabinet perusal, we could table it in the House.

Mr. Penikett: I would not want the Minister to behave with any discourtesy or lack of civility to any of the organizations that submitted briefs. However, let me express my view to the Minister that one of the themes that runs throughout the Environment Act that was adopted by this House is that public business should be done in public, and that people who submitted briefs to the process on changing the Environment Act should not be ashamed of what they had to say and should be prepared to make them public, as should the council's disposition of those submissions be.

This is a serious concern for us, because the government has changed the composition of the council - in my view, contrary to the intent of the act, but that is its decision to make. I am concerned about a closed-circuit process whereby people can submit briefs the public does not know about, the council makes decisions on those briefs, which the public does not know about, then the council makes recommendations to the Cabinet, the Cabinet makes a decision we do not know about, and suddenly we may one day be presented with a legislative fait accompli - under the worst possible circumstances, at the tail end of a session.

The notion of private representations on this matter is inconsistent with the language and policy of the act.

My colleague from Faro seems to think it would be extremely important for me to throw in something about the hospital elevator at this point. I cannot see what possible relevance it has except that we had an excellent legislative return on the subject, which invites more questions today, but being of limited intelligence I have trouble relating this to renewable resources so I will not ask the Minister about that, if that is okay.

I do, however, want to ask about something else.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Penikett: This is a first for me - being heckled by my own side.

One of the things that the discussion on the Department of Renewable Resources estimates has done is cause me to go back and have another read of the Environment Act - and fascinating reading it is. I have discovered a number of things in here that I thought were the law but do not seem to be happening.

Before the Minister gets worried about a long debate on this, let me be very focused on one issue. Among the things I wanted to point out were that the language of the Environment Act says very clearly that it is the duty of the Council on the Economy and the Environment to encourage public discussion of the economy and the environment and their interrelationship; in other words it has an obligation to do its business in public as much as possible.

The other point I noticed that was very interesting was the section on the conservation strategy in the Environment Act. It says here, and perhaps I could just read this section rather than getting the Minister to do it, and then I will ask him to comment - section 43, "Yukon Conservation Strategy.

"The Minister, in cooperation with other such members of the Executive Council as may be assigned by the Commissioner in Executive Council, shall prepare revisions to the Yukon Conservation Strategy."

Going away from the text here, the Minister will recall that both the economic strategy and the conservation strategy were supposed to be reviewed annually with a lot of public input and then revised to keep them topical and relevant.

The next clause goes on to say, "The Minister shall ensure that opportunities are provided for public involvement in the preparation of revisions to the Yukon Conservation Strategy."

Section 44 goes on to say, "The purposes of the conservation strategy are (a) to provide a comprehensive long-term guide to the policies and practices of the Government of Yukon in relation to the environment; and (b) to set out the commitments and recommendations of the Government of the Yukon with respect to conservation of the environment and sustaintable development."

Then, section 45 says "The first revision of the Yukon Conservation Strategy shall be presented by the Minister to the Legislative Assembly within three years of the date this section comes into force."

I do not even know if that section has come into force, but it goes on to say that the revision to the conservation strategy shall be presented by the Minister to the Legislature every three years after the presentation of the first review. Section 46 talks about an annual review: "The Council shall conduct an annual review of the performance of the Government of the Yukon in terms of the implementation of the Yukon Conservation Strategy and report its findings to the Legislative Assembly. (2) The Minister shall provide to the Council such technical assistance as is necessary for the Council to conduct its review."

The following sections are about the state of the environment report, which we have already asked the government about. Can the Minister tell me what the department's intentions are in respect to the conservation strategy, the reviews referred to in the act, and what does the Minister see as his responsibilities in respect to those sections?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The Department of Renewable Resources would be the department responsible for providing the report on the government's progress in implementing the strategy. I have a note here that indicates that the report is required in 1995, if I remember correctly. The report would be reviewed by Cabinet, and then forwarded to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment - to assist the council in meeting its obligations under the Environment Act and to review government's implementation of the Yukon Conservation Strategy. Eighty percent of the commitments have been completed or are underway. Many of Renewable Resources commitments are being implemented through the Environment Act and regulations, and through land claims and devolution activities.

I see the Department of Renewable Resources being the department responsible. I do not have any problem with the requirements of the act - with the annual report and the three-year review.

Mr. Penikett: I am pleased to hear that, and I am pleased to hear the Minister remind us that the deadline for doing the first revision is 1995. However, section 43(2) states, "The Minister shall ensure that opportunities are provided for public involvement in the preparation of revisions to the Yukon Conservation Strategy." I have not heard anything about any public opportunities for involvement in revisions at all. Can the Minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Again, the requirement is in the act and I do not have any problem with it. I do not think we are going to go through another process like that of the Yukon Economic Strategy, but I certainly do not have any problem with a consultation process that involves the stakeholders and the public. I certainly do not have a problem with people having the opportunity to provide input.

Mr. Penikett: It is a matter of record that, of course, the Yukon Conservation Strategy consultation was quite different from the Yukon Economic Strategy consultation in two respects: firstly, the economic strategy consultation was basically facilitated and managed by the government and the conservation strategy was managed by an independent body; secondly, the economic strategy involved many large meetings of citizens. I think the conservation strategy involved more discreet groups, partly because I think the Minister of the day felt that there was a pretty representative body on the planning committee. The committee that conducted the conservation strategy had in its ranks, of course, the kind of composition and makeup that would more closely resemble the Fish and Wildlife Management Board, or perhaps a combination of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment.

I would like to ask the Minister if he could undertake to come back to us with a legislative return describing how he will be undertaking the process described under section 43 of the act.

The second thing I want to ask about is section 46 of the act, which talks about annual reviews of the performance of the government, in terms of implementation and the reporting of its findings in the Legislative Assembly. I do not recall ever receiving such a report in the last number of years.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There has been a report for 1994. I guess it would be in draft form. It is not finalized. It is just a matter of putting some finishing touches on it, but there is a report and that will be made public in the next couple of months.

Mr. Penikett: I am reaching the age where there are gaps in my memory, but I do not recall receiving, as yet, any report tabled in the House on the annual review required under section 46 - I am not talking about 1994 - but was there one for 1992 or 1993?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, it is my information that there was one in 1992, but there was not one in 1993 so the 1994 report, which is being completed now, will cover both 1993 and 1994.

Mr. Penikett: Can I extract a commitment from the Minister, to the extent that he is able, that there will be reports tabled in 1995, 1996 and 1997?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: As long as I am here, there will be reports in 1998, 1999 and until I reach retirement age. I do not have any trouble making that commitment to the Member.

Mr. Penikett: I thought earlier the Minister was actually angling for that nifty job in the agriculture secretariat, but I noticed that he would not make a financial commitment, so Mr. Cable, who was going to be competing with him for that post has a withering interest - perhaps not, perhaps it will become a federal matter.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Penikett: Senator, that is right. Actually, the other day I offered to sell my chance to be Senator to the Liberal Leader, but he said it was not worth more than a penny, but we agreed on a price anyway.

I want to ask the Minister one last question - I hope the last question. The other day I received a complaint from a very angry person about the Yukon government appointments to the Teslin Renewable Resource Council. This person alleged that the people who had been appointed were of one political colour, and this person was quite upset by the lack of balance.

Without getting into the details of that subject and naming persons, could the Minister tell me what process the territorial government goes through in identifying and appointing its nominees to such boards?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: When the Chair leaves and the Deputy Chair takes his place, it always startles me when I first hear a different voice.

There has been a lot of interest in the renewable resource councils, and there was an awful lot of interest in the Fish and Wildlife Management Board as well. We have many, many letters from people - a list of names of people - who would like to sit on these various boards. For the renewable resource councils, I have sent letters to organizations in the communities involved. For instance, in Teslin, we wrote a letter to the Teslin Village Council and asked it for some ideas on names. We also went to the MLAs, both for Mayo and for Teslin, and asked them for input. We also asked for input from any other organization that would be involved. We ended up with a long list.

I am a little surprised, because I do know of one member on the council - a member whom I appointed - who would certainly not be a supporter of the Yukon Party. I can assure the Members opposite that, upon the appointment of these people, there was no political involvement whatsoever. I tried to work with the Teslin Tlingit Council on the appointment of people, as well. I wanted to appoint people on both sides who would not only represent all of the interests that need to be represented on councils of this sort, but also people who could work together.

I was very successful in Haines Junction. The chief and I sat down to discuss the names that had been suggested. I was not quite as successful in Teslin, although I did know the names of their appointees before being officially told.

That comment does surprise me somewhat, because it certainly was not my intention when these people were appointed.

Mr. Penikett: I have to tell the Minister that, having been on that side of the House for seven and a half years, it does not surprise me at all. I had the most amazing complaints during the time I was in government. Occasionally, they were from MLAs.

We have had discussions around this topic before. Is the Minister prepared, as a general principle, to table the list of nominees? We know who the appointees are. We know we can make our own judgments, as legislators, about who was nominated and who was appointed. It would be an interesting exercise to look at people whose names were put forward as a result of the Minister's solicitations, and then see who was appointed. We may, as a result of doing that, come to the kind of conclusion that will enable us to tell angry citizens on the street that they were wrong. That does occasionally happen.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: No. I would not. There have been written submissions from the Teslin Village Council. If the mayor wanted to provide that to the Member, I would not have any problem with that. I do not want to provide the letters that we have received. We do receive letters from people who indicate that they would like to sit on this type of board or perhaps some other type of board. For example, we have had people write to us and say that they would like to sit on the Renewable Resources Council or the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. I suppose they want to sit on a board that deals with wildlife or fish. I would not make public all of the names of the people that I looked at for eventual appointment. If some of the individuals want their names known, that is up to them. The Teslin Village Council could do that, as well, but I will not unless they tell me I should.

Mr. Penikett: It may not be the Minister's intention, but he is certainly making it sound like he did not accept the Teslin Village Council's recommendations.

I have a lot more questions, but I understand the Official Opposition critic is fairly itching to get into the lines of this department, and out of respect for my colleague, I will save my questions for another occasion.

Ms. Moorcroft: I have a few questions for the Minister about the Kluane Park road. I have asked questions about this in the past, and I have some information I would like to go over. I understand the call for proposals to conduct an environmental assessment on the proposed Kluane Park road within the Kluane Game Sanctuary was expected to go out and be awarded in late February and early March. Has that contract been awarded and, if so, to whom?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The Department of Tourism takes the lead role in this particular project. We do not have that information. Tourism would provide that for the Member.

Ms. Moorcroft: I will save the questions I have for the Tourism debate then. I have one further question for the Minister of Renewable Resources, who is responsible for the state of the environment. The information provided to me by the government is that the terms of reference for the environmental assessment were prepared by Community and Transportation Services, Tourism and Renewable Resources. I would expect Renewable Resources to have the information regarding the environmental assessment and its cost.

Can the Minister tell us who the main advocate for this loop along the Kluane Park boundary is?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I have no idea. I know that over many years there have been all kinds of people talking about access, and so on, but I do not know who the main advocates of the road are.

Ms. Moorcroft: I would not think that it would surprise the Minister to hear that the Member for Kluane has been an active advocate of that road for some time.

I would like to ask the Minister, since he is the Minister responsible for the Environment Act, whether his department will be taking the position that the decision about whether the road goes ahead will respect the results of the environmental impact study?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We would not have any choice, because we would not get a permit to build a road. The Regional Environmental Review Committee - RERC - would actually be providing the licence following a natural earth environmental assessment review process.

Ms. Moorcroft: I am certainly relieved to hear the Minister say that the government would not have any choice but to abide by the decision of the Regional Environmental Review Committee.

When I asked the Minister of Community and Transportation Services about that, he indicated that, if the environmental impact review resulted in a reasonable decision, he would respect that decision. I had some concern that their work would not be properly respected. I think the environmental assessment review process should be followed and the Minister should not be overturning it if the government decides that the environmental assessment review is unreasonable.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The process has to be followed and we cannot overturn the decision.

Deputy Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There being no further general debate, Mr. Deputy Chair, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 3.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 4 - First Appropriation Act, 1995-96 - continued

Department of Renewable Resources

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I have some prepared notes on both the capital and the O&M and I would just like to read them into the record. I will then entertain questions.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I just did it on the supplementaries. I can forego the prepared statements.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

The 1995-96 O&M estimates call for the department to spend $12.5 million in the coming year. We will see that the funding priorities for the department continue to reflect this government's commitment to the provisions of good government, settling land claims, transferring Yukon land and resources, protecting the environment and managing wildlife, all of which are commitments outlined in our four-year plan.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Fisher:

I hear a certain note of skepticism on the other side of the House.

Members will note that there is a small decrease of $8,000 in the O&M votes. However, I would point out that recoveries are down by $189,000, and therefore the net costs will see an increase. The major reasons for this reduction in recoveries are the Arctic environmental strategy projects funded in 1994-95.

Our administration program reflects a small decrease of $33,000, primarily due to the effect of the wage reduction, together with a projected decrease in repairs and maintenance, and contract services. In policy and planning, our major new initiatives are the annual Canadian Council of Environment Ministers conference, which we will be hosting this spring in Haines Junction, and this fall in Whitehorse. The history-making Haines Junction session is for Canadian environment ministers to decide on the harmonization initiative intended to bring certainty and consistency to the environmental laws of the land. We expect that our 100 delegates will be arriving and staying in the Junction for this important meeting. I am sure we can all agree that Haines Junction's spectacular location is an excellent one to showcase Yukon's people and traditions. The additional personnel costs in the program are largely the result of a number of vacancies in the 1994-95 fiscal year, which were filled by acting personnel, thus decreasing the amount of the actual expenditure during the year.

Turning now to environment, parks and regional services, the increase in division management is due to the fact that the senior position in this division was vacant for a large part of the year. The small increase of $15,000 in environmental protection is due largely to an increased budget for travel, as a result of the implementation of the Environment Act and regulations. Parks and outdoor recreation is reflecting a small decrease, primarily as a result of the purchase of some campground firewood for the 1995-96 season, through the 1994-95 winter works projects. Without this, we would have had an increase of about $17,000, in order to extend the season in some of the campgrounds, which we expect will receive a heavier demand during the shoulder season, due to the RCMP centennial celebrations.

In resource management, we are continuing to budget division management at $1.00, pending forestry transfer. We are budgeting for a decrease of $17,000 in agriculture, due largely to a decreased budget for contracting out product inspection and consulting services, and in decreased employee travel through consolidation of in-territory travel for agricultural extension work, grazing management and agricultural lands.

In the fish and wildlife branch, we have presented a status quo budget with minimal change. To support this government's land claims commitments, Renewable Resources is planning to spend almost $1.3 million for negotiations and implementation of land claims agreements in the Yukon. Included in this is $171,000 for overall administration. This is an increase of $41,000 from 1994-95, primarily due to increased travel and contract services as the negotiations for the remaining First Nations agreements become more intense.

The line item for the First Nations comprehensive claim amounts to $250,000. This consists of $270,000 for the government's annual commitment to the fish and wildlife enhancement trust fund, plus $10,000 for the departments involved in the final agreement, negotiations, including development and assessment of legislation negotiations.

Finally, there is no change in the amount budgeted for the Inuvialuit final agreement. This amount is fully recoverable from Canada.

On the revenue side, there are no changes to the fee structures. The three-percent increase, totalling $22,000, is largely attributed to expected small increases to the revenue generated from the sale of campground permits and fishing licences, due to expected increases in tourism from the RCMP centennial activities.

That pretty well covers the highlights and major changes in my department's 1995-96 O&M budget.

If it is agreeable to the Members present, I would like to go ahead with the capital budget and then we can carry on from there.

With respect to the 1995-96 capital budget, Members will note that the government has continued to indicate all projects related to the forestry transfer as $1.00 line items. This is because the final agreement with respect to the transfer has not been concluded.

The budgets for the forestry-related items will need to be introduced by a separate supplementary. Negotiating for this transfer has been a very in-depth, complicated and arduous exercise, which we hope will be concluded in the near future. I intend to provide this House with all of the details as soon as possible, after negotiations are completed and the final agreement is in place.

In administration, the estimates reflect a decrease of $55,000 from the 1994-95 forecast. This is largely due to three major changes. There is an increase of $39,000 in computer equipment as the department continues to fill its needs through the efficient handling of information through computerization.

There is a decrease of $82,000 for office accommodation and improvements. The $87,000 in the 1994-95 forecast is largely attributed to the cost of constructing a large meeting room, together with some funds for improving the security of our facility at 10 Burns Road.

There is a decrease of $13,000 for office furniture and equipment as the 1994-95 figure includes replacement of a number of photocopiers.

The area of policy and planning has been increased by $51,000, largely due to a $29,000 increase in the budget for resource and land information systems. There is a new line item of $25,000 for cottage lot development. This is a new project that will assist the government in providing land to Yukoners and to manage the use and protection of lakeshore areas.

We will be continuing work on the state of the environment report, in conjunction with other jurisdictions. The report will provide an overview of the environmental health of the Yukon, together with baseline data on various indicators as well as traditional knowledge. This report will be made public following a review by Cabinet and the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. A total of $95,000 has been budgeted for this purpose, of which $35,000 is recoverable from the Government of Canada.

The environment, parks and regional services area has been decreased by $203,000. There are a number of fluctuations and I will cover the major ones. In the area of capital maintenance, the government did a couple of major repainting jobs in 1994-95, which will not need to be repeated for a few years. The 1994-95 figure of $36,000 for the Dempster Interpretive Centre was for the purchase and stockpile of logs. These building logs needed to season for at least one year to avoid construction problems resulting from shrinkage.

The amount of $117,000 in 1994-95 for prior years' projects represented the monies transferred from Department of Community and Transportation Services for special waste management.

The $31,000 for the Kusawa Lake management plan will enable us to finalize our consultation process with the public, including the appropriate First Nations. The $62,000 in 1994-95 prior year's projects reflect the elimination of the Carcross dunes management plan from the budget. Resource management is decreased by $35,000, largely because the 1994-95 figure for wildlife viewing infrastructure included a supplemental of $61,000 for various winter works projects. Also, prior year's projects of $44,000 in 1994-95 were for the bear-proof dump fencing. These two reductions are offset somewhat by the $30,000 budgeted for the endangered species project and the additional $40,000 in the abattoir project.

Wood bison, an endangered, specially protected species were reintroduced to the Yukon starting in 1986 as part of Canada's effort to build up the remaining bison to a level where they will no longer be considered endangered or threatened. The Government of Yukon committed itself to a joint project with the Canadian Wildlife Service and Parks Canada to establish one free-ranging, wild herd in the territory. A five-year-plan was implemented in 1989, the main objective of which was the establishment of a herd of 200 or more animals.

The $50,000 in the abattoir project is budgeted to honour our commitment to the project.

This pretty well covers the highlights, and I trust that this will help as we go through my department's budget.

Deputy Chair: Is there any further general debate on Bill No. 4?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chair, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 4.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 3 - Third Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued

Department of Renewable Resources - continued

On Operation and Maintenance

On Administration

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is made up of the impact of the revised wage restraint legislation, $16,000; additional postings and casual-use secretarial and library positions, $13,000; an increase in contracts and repairs, computer trouble-shooting assistance and additional vehicle repairs, $19,000; for a total of $48,000.

Administration in the amount of $48,000 agreed to

On Policy and Planning

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is made up of the impact of the revised wage restraint legislation, $12,000; an additional summer secretarial position, $5,000; miscellaneous minor variances, a decrease of $1,000; for a total of $16,000.

Policy and Planning in the amount of $16,000 agreed to

On Environment, Parks and Regional Services

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is made up of the impact of the revised wage restraint legislation, $56,000; a vacancy in the ADM position, a decrease of $53,000; hunter education expenditure recovery from Justice, a decrease of $50,000; winter employment projects of firewood stockpiling, $20,000; a transfer from the Community and Transportation Services special waste program, $115,000; an internal transfer of the grazing program, originally transferred from Community and Transportation Services to this branch in error, a decrease of $61,000; and miscellaneous minor variances, $2,000; for an overall total of $29,000.

Environment, Parks and Regional Services in the amount of $29,000 agreed to

On Resource Management

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The impact of revised wage restraint legislation, $47,000; additional positions of moose and caribou technicians, $60,000; Aishihik caribou studies, $12,000; Arctic Environmental Strategy carried forward from 1993-94, $124,000; additional funding recoverable required, $40,000; winter employment projects, Aishihik-Wolf Lake caribou composition count, $47,000; wildlife harvest monitoring, $89,000; target training, $22,000; internal transfer from EP and RS re agricultural grazing program, $61,000; miscellaneous minor variances, $5,000, for a total resource management of $507,000.

Resource Management in the amount of $507,000 agreed to

On Land Claims

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There is an increase of $1,000 from the impact of wage restraint legislation, lags in land claim implementation for a reduction of $40,000; reduced costs for the Mayo Renewable Resource Council for a reduction of $10,000; for an overall reduction of $49,000.

Land Claims in the amount of an underexpenditure of $49,000 agreed to

Operation and Maintenance in the amount of $551,000 agreed to

On Capital

On Administration

On Departmental Equipment

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Department equipment, a miscellaneous minor variance, for a decrease of $13,000.

Departmental Equipment in the amount of an underexpenditure of $13,000 agreed to

On Computer Equipment

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That was for miscellaneous minor variances, for $11,000.

Computer Equipment in the amount of $11,000 agreed to

On Information Systems

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That was a revote from 1994-95, for $2,000.

Information Systems in the amount of $2,000 agreed to

On Office Accommodation and Improvements

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That was for the construction of a meeting room at 10 Burns Road.

Office Accommodation and Improvements in the amount of $47,000 agreed to

On Policy and Planning

On Resources and Land Information Systems (RLIS)

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is for miscellaneous minor variances.

Resources and Land Information Systems (RLIS) in the amount of $1,000 agreed to

On State of the Environment and Economic Reports

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Those are fully recoverable funds from DIAND, $10,000, and Environment Canada, $43,000.

State of the Environment and Economic Reports in the amount of $53,000 agreed to

On Environment, Parks, and Regional Services

On Land and Facilities

On Capital Maintenance Upgrades

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That was a winter works project to repair an overhead door in Haines Junction for $3,000.

Capital Maintenance Upgrades in the amount of $3,000 agreed to

On Special Waste Facility

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That was a transfer from the Department of Community and Transportation Services.

Special Waste Facility in the amount of $117,000 agreed to

On Dempster Interpretive Centre

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This was for the purchase of the logs that we spoke about earlier for the Dempster Interpretive Centre.

Dempster Interpretive Centre in the amount of $36,000 agreed to

On Territorial Parks

On Park System Plan

Park System Plan in the amount of $1,000 agreed to

On Resource Assessment

Resource Assessment in the amount of $1,000 agreed to

On Territorial Campground and Day Use Areas

On Northern Region

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That was for winter employment projects to clear slash from campground sites and prefabricate some facilities, for $78,000.

Northern Region in the amount of $78,000 agreed to

On Outdoor Recreation Sites and Corridors

On Outdoor Recreation System Plan

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That was for a winter works project to prepare a Haines Junction area plan.

Mr. Harding: Has it been tabled in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Apparently the project may not happen at all. When the budget was put together, it was planned for. However, the First Nations are not ready to go ahead with it at this time. The latest note we have is that is has not been completed.

Outdoor Recreation System Plan in the amount of $20,000 agreed to

On Heritage Rivers

On Bonnet Plume River

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There were no recoveries from the Canadian Heritage River Board. Consequently, we did not do the work.

Mr. Harding: I see from my reading that there was some expenditure made. What for? It was not all turned back, if one compares the recoveries to the expenditure budget.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We do not have an actual breakdown of what was spent. If the Member wishes, I can provide that.

Mr. Harding: I would like the same information for the next line as well.

Bonnet Plume River in the amount of an underexpenditure of $10,000 agreed to

On Tatshenshini River

Tatshenshini River in the amount of an underexpenditure of $30,000 agreed to

On Resource Management

On Special Projects

On Wildlife Viewing and Infrastructure

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is for the wildlife viewing infrastructure winter employment projects, slide show viewing, guides and interpretive panels, for $61,000.

Wildlife Viewing and Infrastructure in the amount of $61,000 agreed to

On Bear-proof Dump Fencing

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is for bear-proof fencing, winter employment project, for $44,000.

Mr. Harding: I would like the Minister to bring back for me a detailed response as to the status of the discussions with the municipality of Faro on the bear-proofing in Faro, in terms of where the government is coming from on that particular issue, what kind of expenditures it wants to commit and what action it wants to take to work with the community on that issue.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I cannot even get out of this one. I could say that it is an Economic Development project, but it would be pretty difficult to get out of as I am Minister of that department also.

I have no problem with that, and we can provide it to the Member in the next couple of weeks.

Bear-proof Dump Fencing in the amount of $44,000 agreed to

On Agriculture

On Infrastructure Facilities (Abattoir)

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That was a reduction because the monies were not spent in that fiscal year.

Infrastructure Facilities (Abattoir) in the amount of an underexpenditure of $40,000 agreed to

Capital in the amount of $382,000 agreed to

Department of Renewable Resources in the amouint of $933,000 agreed to

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chair, I move you report progress on Bill No. 3.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 4 - First Appropriation Act, 1995-96 - continued

Department of Renewable Resources - continued

On Operation and Maintenance

On Administration

On General Management

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There was $238,000 in personnel cost and $14,000 in Other; for a total of $252,000. There was no significant change. The minor increase is largely due to the projection for merit increases.

General Management in the amount of $252,000 agreed to

On Finance and Administration

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The personnel costs are $902,000; Other expenses are $160,000 and the transfer payment is $65,000. The decrease is due largely to the effects of wage restraint legislation, decreased use of short-term employees, decreased repair costs, decreased contract services for computer programming management and trouble-shooting, for a total of $1,127,000.

Finance and Administration in the amount of $1,127,000 agreed to

Administration in the amount of $1,379,000 agreed to

On Policy and Planning

On Director

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There are personnel costs of $144,000; Other costs are $116,000; for a total of $260,000. There is a $35,000 increase due largely to projected costs for hosting the Canadian Council of Environmental Ministers conference.

Mr. Harding: Is that conference going to be a certainty in this fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, it is a certainty. To provide a quick explanation for the Member opposite, the Yukon is the host this year, because I am the president of the Canadian Council of Enviornmental Ministers for the 1995-96 year. It is not that I won this on merit, or because of my very good looks; it is merely because it was the Yukon's turn. However, I do like people to think that I won this on merit.

Director in the amount of $260,000 agreed to

On Policy Analysis

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There are personnel costs in the amount of $220,000; Other, $17,000. There is essentially no change.

Policy Analysis in the amount of $237,000 agreed to

On Planning and Resource Policy

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Personnel costs, $140,000; Other, $5,000. Again, there is no change.

Mr. Harding: In terms of forestry planning policy, has there been any resource transferred to that area from Renewable Resources? Has there been any internal shake-up within the department for that policy framework document that was put out by the government last week?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We do have one person who is responsible for forestry in the department, but it is not in the planning and resource policy area. It is in policy analysis. The gentleman's name is Michael White. He has full responsibility for forestry.

Mr. Harding: Can the Minister tell me who in the department is doing the work? Is it policy people or technicians? How many people are working on forestry policy? Just the one, or what is the structure of the organization? From where are the people coming, and what are they doing?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There are two people in the policy analysis group: the manager and a policy analyst, I believe the title is. The policy analyst is a gentleman who has a degree in resource management and works under Mr. White.

Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to ask the Minister why the position of manager of policy analysis and development was restricted to employees of the Department of Renewable Resources.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It was largely to provide opportunities for employees of the department. There were people in the department who were capable of doing the job but were not at that level in their current position.

Ms. Moorcroft: How many people were interviewed for the position?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Three people were interviewed.

Ms. Moorcroft: Does the Minister know who sat on the interview committee for that position and, as well, for the position of the director of policy and planning?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The deputy minister and the manager of personnel from the department conducted interviews for that position. For the director's position, there were three deputy ministers - from Renewable Resources, Tourism and the Liquor Corporation - and a person from the Public Service Commission.

Planning and Resource Policy in the amount of $145,000 agreed to

On GIS/Remote Sensing

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Personnel costs were $135,000; Other was $36,000; for a total of $171,000. There was an increase of $11,000, due largely to a position reclassification and the use of an auxiliary secretary.

Mr. Harding: Give me the Minister's version of the role of this part of his department.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The GIS is a computer-assisted mapping program.

GIS/Remote Sensing in the amount of $171,000 agreed to

Policy and Planning in the amount of $813,000 agreed to

On Environment, Parks and Regional Services

Ms. Moorcroft: I do have a few questions in general debate, relating to the Managing Yukon Garbage paper that was issued by the department in the development of the Yukon waste management program. I guess this is a program that is following the Minister around as he transfers portfolios from Community and Transportation Services.

The waste disposal discussion paper has been awaited for quite some time. It basically encourages a forum for discussion. I would like to ask the Minister where it goes from here, and when.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The original paper was released March 7, and asked for comments to be returned by April 28. There were four responses. One was from Community and Transportation Services, one was from the City of Whitehorse, one was from Recycling Organics Together Society, and one was from a private citizen. The department intends to extend the comment date to June and to provide a little more advertising to the public. It does not seem that there was a lot of interest expressed on the first go-around.

Ms. Moorcroft: I am really concerned with the Minister's response. The cheapest solution is not necessarily the best solution. We have to consider what is going to be the most cost effective in the long term. It is not cheaper to do something the cheapest way if it is not done right the first time, and if we later have to go back to a more expensive solution.

In paying for waste disposal, the paper steers the discussion to eliminate the option of a transfer station out of hand. It is discouraging to see that downplayed, because a transfer station is probably the best option from an environmental perspective. Also, effective diversion programs can greatly reduce the amount of waste and make the option of a transfer station more affordable.

In the Mount Lorne area, the Hamlet Council of Mount Lorne had done a study on waste management, and had made a recommendation to the government for having a transfer station as the most efficient way to deal with household waste. Does the Minister know why the idea of a transfer station seems to be rejected out of hand here?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I believe that the main reason was the cost. I think that the discussion that we are having illustrates the idea of receiving comments from people. Again, people have to be responsible for their garbage, one way or the other - whether it is through taxation, or a user fee, or whatever it is. I think that a lot of it is education - there is no question about it. A transfer station or some other way to get rid of garbage in one's own community is wonderful, but who is going to take it and who is going to pay for it? I think that is very important. I think it is important for people to realize that whatever we do, someone has to pay for it.

Ms. Moorcroft: I thought the Minister just said that it was released on March 7 and that people had until April 28 to respond. It is now April 12. Did he mean March 28, or do people have until April 28 to respond?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: They do have until April 28 to respond, but we certainly have not been getting a lot of interest in it. That is why we want to extend it. We are doing a bit more media advertising in order to get the interest up.

Ms. Moorcroft: One concern that I have heard is that the paper gives little direction on how the Yukon, as a jurisdiction, is going to deal with the amount of garbage that we generate. It is poor stewardship to use and discard material.

In the introductory comments, there is a sentence that says, "But it is all garbage." It is not all garbage. Recycled paper, for example, is worth $100 to $600 a tonne. Aluminum is worth $500 a tonne. This revenue can cover the cost of waste management.

One of the principles that is put forward is to encourage and support sustainable economic development through an affordable waste management system. If our waste management principles allow us to pollute the planet and waste resources, they cannot be sustainable. I would like to know if it is economic or environmental principles that determine what program is going to be developed.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There is no doubt that whatever happens has to be affordable for the user. If it is economically and environmentally sound, we will certainly look at it seriously.

Ms. Moorcroft: That is exactly right, and I would like to ask the Minister who is going to take it, and who is going to pay? Is the government trying to off-load responsibility for garbage and waste management on to towns and villages, or does the Minister accept that there is a territorial responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There is no question at all but that the municipalities are responsible for waste management within the municipality. It is a requirement under the Municipal Act.

Ms. Moorcroft: What about the responsibility for ensuring that the ways we handle waste are consistent with the principle of stewardship for the environment? What is the role of the government there?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Again, I think that is one of the reasons for the paper - to discuss exactly that. I see the government as having a role. We are the taxing authority in a large geographical part of the Yukon, with a small population. We would have some direct responsibility because we are the taxing authority. The municipalities have responsibility, and there is a question of stewardship, but I believe that that is why we are providing the discussion paper and asking for responses. We want to hear what the desires and wishes of the people are.

Ms. Moorcroft: I am glad to hear the Minister say that the government wants to hear what people's ideas are, because I am really concerned that the government has already decided what it will do. Under the implementation section of the paper, it seems to be steering toward the trench-and-burn approach, and that is the only solution for some communities. This should be a last resort, not the only solution. There are a lot of problems with burning waste. One of them is that if paper is being burned, it is not being recycled. Another problem is the air pollution and toxic fly ash that is caused by burning. I know I receive complaints all the time about dumps around the territory and the smoke, smell and mess involved in burning. I would like the Minister to give me his assurance that the government is not looking at trenching and burning as being the best approach because it is the cheapest.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Again, it depends upon the community and the recycling that takes place, and everything else but, no, we are not advocating trench-and-burn or any other method of disposal or handling.

Ms. Moorcroft: The Minister stated that education is really important. What does his department intend to do about the issue of educating people to create less garbage within their households and not to have such a "throw-away" approach for dealing with the waste we generate.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Right now, we are consulting, and from that we will be able to derive on what topics people need more information. We can respond when we have the results of the consultation in hand.

Ms. Moorcroft: I have a couple of questions based on the statistics provided under environment, parks and regional services. The forecast is that the Federal/Territorial Land Advisory Committee will review 205 applications in the 1994-95 year. It shows a 32-percent decrease to 140 land applications to be reviewed in the coming 1995-96 year. What is the reason for that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We do not have that information here, but we can provide it for the Member opposite.

Ms. Moorcroft: I was interested to know why they were anticipating fewer land applications.

There is also a reduction in the fuel wood permits from 300 for 1994-95 to 50 for 1995-96. The note indicates that permits within the block land transfer will decrease due to transfers of land in the Long Lake area. Is land being transferred to the municipality? What does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That has to do with the Whitehorse sewage lagoon lands that are being transferred to the municipality.

Chair: Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a brief recess.

Recess

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

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I have a comment in response to question that was asked before the break about the number of applications being reviewed by the Federal/Territorial Lands Advisory Committee. The number of applications predicted for 1994-95 of 140 applications is down from 205 in 1994-95, because of the elimination of a backlog of applications, including 80 for gravel pit reserves.

On Division Management

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There were personnel costs of $98,000 and Other, $18,000. There was a $61,000 increase due to a long-term vacancy in 1994-95.

Division Management in the amount of $116,000 agreed to

On Environmental Protection and Assessment

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There were personnel costs of $599,000; Other, $160,000; a $15,000 increase, due to largely to increased travel for increased participation in the CCEM initiative associated with Yukon being the chair in 1995-96; participation in the National Science Managers Committee and the Arctic environmental strategy fund containments program, additional travel required for monitoring and inspection regarding special wastes and pesticides.

Environmental Protection and Assessment in the amount of $759,000 agreed to

On Parks and Outdoor Recreation

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There were personnel costs of $1,104,000 and Other, $463,000, for a total activity of $1,567,000.

There is a $3,000 difference. There is no appreciable change.

Mr. Harding: What is the mandate of this expenditure? What task does the Minister like to see performed from this expenditure of $1.5 million?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is mainly for keeping our campgrounds open. There are four FTEs in administration and planning and seven and one-quarter FTEs in the actual parks regions - the Kluane region, Liard region, Klondike region and so on.

Mr. Harding: That seems like a lot for a personnel allotment of $1.1 million. Where is the other personnel allotment? That is only 11.5 FTEs. Does this include wages for part-time campground employees or seasonals? What is involved?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, there are an additional seven and two-thirds FTEs for auxiliary campground people.

Mr. Harding: Are there any reductions in any of those positions from last year?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not believe that there is any change. If so, I will provide it to the Member.

Parks and Outdoor Recreation in the amount of $1,567,000 agreed to

On Regional Services

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Personnel costs are $1,602,000 and Other is $481,000, for a total of $2,083,000. There is no significant change from other years.

Mr. Harding: On the $481,000 for Other. What is Other?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Other includes: Employees' travel in the Yukon, 69.8; employees' travel outside Yukon, 15.1; other travel in Yukon, 10.9; contract services, 68.2; repairs and maintenance, 25.1; rental expense, 75; supplies, 22.5; postage and freight, 9.3; advertising is 18.7; program materials, 81.2; petroleum, oil and lubricants, 18.7; utilities, 29.5; communications, 50.4; non-consumable assets, 9.0; other, 7.6; recoveries, a decrease of 30.0, for a total of 481.

Mr. Harding: Regarding the regional services $2,000,000 expenditure, who are the people involved in that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Mainly, these are our conservation officers throughout the territory.

Regional Services in the amount of $2,083,000 agreed to

Environment, Parks and Regional Services in the amount of $4,525,000 agreed to

On Resource Management

On Division Management

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There is personnel costs for $1.00; Other for $1.00; transfer payments, $1.00; total activity, $1.00. This is actually to establish a line item for the anticipated forestry transfer.

Division Management in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

On Agriculture

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Personnel costs, $415,000; Other, $111,000; transfer payments, $47,000. There is a $17,000 decrease due largely to lower travel costs and lower expected costs of contracting out for product inspection services.

Mr. Harding: Can I get a breakdown on the services provided for the expenditures, and not just the expenditures?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I can outline the activities. There are three people in administration who look after these activities - product inspection service, grazing lease program, Pounds Act administration, agricultural lands disposal; agriculture extension, soils testing and the green plan.

Mr. Harding: There is no mention of the new game farming regulations in that line item, and no mention of game farming at all. Why would that not be mentioned? Obviously, there must be some costs in this line item from that.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is handled by the director. It was all internal; there were no external costs.

Mr. Harding: How does the Minister plan to have extra duties placed on existing people? Was there much room to add extra duties among the people who were handling other enforcement and other issues?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Before the regulations, there were a number of people in the department who were dealing with game farmers. We only have three game farms in the territory, and existing personnel have been dealing with them on an ongoing basis, for years and years, so there was no need to add additional personnel to deal with game farms simply because regulations were brought in.

Agriculture in the amount of $610,000 agreed to

On Fish and Wildlife

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The personnel costs are $2,454,000; Other, $1,237,000; transfer payments, $352,000; for a total activity of $4,043,000. There is very little change.

Mr. Harding: Could I have the breakdown for the Other costs totalling $1,237,00, and what are the transfer payments for?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Employee travel in Yukon, $120,600; employee travel outside of Yukon, $26,500; other travel in Yukon, $11,800; honoraria, $204,000; contract services, $180,900; repairs and maintenance, $9,500; rental expenses, $593,300; supplies, $39,100; postage and freight, $6,300; advertising, $500; program materials, $82,700; petroleum, oil and lubricants, $71,800; utilities, $500; communications, $35,800; non-consumable assets, $13,100; Other, $42,200; for a total of $1,237,000.

On the transfers, there were contribution agreements of $48,000 for the Porcupine Caribou Management Board. The Yukon's portion is one-third of the board's operational expenses; $48,000 for the Yukon Trappers Association to deliver workshops in fur harvesting techniques; $87,000 to the Council for Yukon Indians to conduct the native harvest survey; $86,000 to the Council for Yukon Indians to deliver the joint YTG/Yukon First Nations Carcross caribou recovery plan; and $61,000 to the Whitehorse fish hatchery, for a one-third share of operating expenses.

Mr. Harding: For the $2,450,000 for personnel, what range of positions does that entail? Is it everything in fish and wildlife, with the exception of the conservation officers? What is included?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, there are 32.6 FTEs and 6.5 casuals, or auxiliaries.

Fish and Wildlife in the amount of $4,043,000 agreed to

Resource Management in the amount of $4,653,000 agreed to

On Land Claims

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The personnel costs are $123,000, Other costs are $48,000, for a total activity of $171,000, which is an increase of $41,000 due largely to an increase in contract services and travel as a result of increased activity in negotiations for the remaining First Nation agreements.

Mr. Harding: What is the increased activity? What bands are active in negotiations underway right now?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Dawson and Kwanlin Dun First Nations are quite active in the negotiations. Pelly, Carmacks and Kluane are also becoming more and more active.

On Land Claims Administration

Land Claims Administration in the amount of $171,000 agreed to

On Yukon First Nations Comprehensive Claim

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It is in transfer payments of $270,000, which is actually money going to the other fish and wildlife management enhancement fund.

Yukon First Nations Comprehensive Claim in the amount of $280,000 agreed to

On Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA)

Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) in the amount of $718,000 agreed to

Land Claims in the amount of $1,169,000 agreed to

Operation and Maintenance in the amount of $12,539,000 agreed to

On Capital

Chair: We are now in capital estimates, page 11-3. Is there any general debate on the program, administration?

On Administration

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Office furniture, $25,000; forest transfer equipment, $1.00; information systems and computer equipment, $150,000; information services, $18,000; lands and facilities office accommodation and improvements, $5,000; for a total of $348,000 in administration.

On Equipment and Furniture

On Departmental Equipment

Mr. Harding: The Minister gave me all the lines. I would like to know what was bought for computer information systems and furniture, and what nice office renovations did we make?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The departmental equipment is all the good stuff that the Member opposite would be very interested in - the skidoos, the tents, all the general equipment that the conservation officers and the various personnel use in their duties.

The $150,000 in computer equipment is for all of the computer equipment needed within the department. It is for additional equipment required to replace obsolete and worn out equipment.

The office accommodation and improvements was a decrease, due to the extra funding in 1994-95 for the meeting room we spoke of previously.

Mr. Harding: The forestry transfer line item shows $1.00. As a territory, we have not gotten close enough to purchase any forestry equipment, have we? The Minister is shaking his head no.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: No, not at this point in time.

Departmental Equipment in the amount of $150,000 agreed to

On Office Furniture and Equipment

Office Furniture and Equipment in the amount of $25,000 agreed to

On Forestry Transfer - Equipment

Forestry Transfer - Equipment in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

On Information Systems

On Computer Equipment

Computer Equipment in the amount of $150,000 agreed to

On Information Systems

Information Systems in the amount of $18,000 agreed to

On Lands and Facilities

On Office Accommodation and Improvements

Office Accommodation and Improvements in the amount of $5,000 agreed to

Administration in the amount of $348,000 agreed to

On Policy and Planning

Chair: Is there any general debate on policy and planning?

Mr. Harding: I did not quite understand what is happening with the made-in-the-Yukon forestry policy process. My understanding from the Minister is that an inter-departmental committee had been struck. There might even be an inter-agency committee, according to the Minister's comments on the radio in February. I would like to know who is heading this up and who is involved. Is it just the two policy people who were mentioned? Precisely who has the lead role, and who is involved with them?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Essentially, three departments are involved in the forestry transfer, forestry policy development, and so on. Who takes the lead depends on the actual activity that they are involved in. Generally speaking, Renewable Resources, through their two people - Michael White, the fellow I indicated before - would lead in policy development, with assistance from some of his own people. In Economic Development, there is one person in policy who is devoted to that particular task - forestry devolution and forestry policy development.

We also deal with the Executive Council Office, because of intergovernmental needs, for example, between the federal government or First Nations government, and so on. Generally speaking, for policy development it would be Renewable Resources that takes the lead role. When we deal with, for example, the Southeast Yukon Forest Association and its specific issues, Economic Development would likely take the lead role in respect to inter-agency activities, and we do have ongoing dialogue with the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Mr. Harding: Is it just policy people involved in this? Who are they bringing into the fold? Are they using technical people from the departments? How does it work?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We will bring people in - for instance, my official just mentioned an example in the bug-kill area in Haines Junction. We had our habitat people involved on that particular project, but we do not actually have any forestry technicians on staff.

On Resources and Land Information Systems

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is to continue implementing the GIS, or geographic information system.

Mr. Harding: What is the reason for the increase?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not have that information here. We will have to provide it to the Member.

Resources and Land Information Systems in the amount of $100,000 agreed to

On State of the Environment and Economic Reports

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is to finish the state of the environment report, as required by the Environment Act.

Mr. Harding: To what economic reports does this line item refer?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is some kind of typo. I did not even notice it on my notes. It is just a state of the environment report. The words "and economic" should be scratched out of the budget book.

State of the Environment Report in the amount of $95,000 agreed to

On Development Assessment Process

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is to participate in tripartite negotiations to complete detailed guidelines for the drafting of developmental assessment legislation.

Mr. Harding: I believe this is extremely important. Is this the government's major thrust toward development assessment processes and streamlining?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, it is. The Member is correct that this is very important. It is essentially our line item, so that we can participate with Economic Development and the Executive Council Office on the tripartite agreement.

Mr. Harding: In 1993-94, there was a zero expenditure. In 1994-95, the forecast is $40,000. This year reflects an increase. Why is there an increase? Is the money actually being spent? Has any of it lapsed over the last couple of years?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not have the exact numbers here, but I expect that most of the $40,000 lapsed.

The First Nations were not ready to deal with this in previous years, but under the final agreements we have two years to put it together, so we expect that there will be a move to get this in place.

Development Assessment Process in the amount of $50,000 agreed to

On Cottage Lot Development

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is for the preparation of a general geographic information system inventory and an analysis of Yukon lakes, together with a more specific analysis of a region selected for development. In addition, a cottage lot development approach will be prepared to assist government in providing land to Yukoners and to manage the use and protection of lakeshore areas.

Mr. Harding: I notice that this a totally new expenditure. What did this expenditure arise as a result of? What was the thinking behind this, because it has not been done in the past?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There are numerous people all over the territory who are requesting cottage lots or some tenure to land - some remote and some on lakeshores, and so on. It is getting to be a very large concern and there is a lot of interest from Yukoners. We thought it best to address this right away to try to help the people who are trying to obtain tenure to land, while keeping it within planned initiatives.

Mr. Harding: Is there some unique reason why it would not be handled under Community and Transportation Services? Is it because Renewable Resources wants an intergovernmental association with that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We would be working with Community and Transportation Services, but the thing we have to be concerned of is key wildlife habitat, fisheries and the number of people one could put on a certain lake. That type of thing is likely the reason why Renewable Resources is taking a lead role.

Cottage Lot Development in the amount of $25,000 agreed to

Policy and Planning in the amount of $270,000 agreed to

On Environment, Parks and Regional Services

Chair: Is there any general debate?

On Lands and Facilities

On Capital Maintenance Upgrades

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is to provide for major repairs to public buildings. There was a higher cost in 1994-95 due to some major repainting.

Capital Maintenance Upgrades in the amount of $30,000 agreed to

On Forestry Facilities (Communities)

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is to identify a line item to provide for facilities used in the communities by regional services as per the forestry transfer agreement.

Forestry Facilities (Communities) in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

On Dempster Interpretive Centre

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This amount is to identify a line for the design and construction of a new interpretive centre at the Tombstone campground. Funds from 1994-95 were used to purchase and stockpile logs for seasoning.

Mr. Harding: Can I get more details on that? Why is it a dollar item? At what stage of the development process is it, besides the logs? Where are the logs?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We are not going to build the project until 1996-97. The logs need to be seasoned - they should sit for about a year - and are in the Dawson compound. The logs were cut under a winter works program.

Mr. Harding: Did the seasoning cost $1.00? Why is there a $1.00 item? Why is it not more accurate?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Essentially, we wanted to identify the item. We have spent some money on it under winter works, but we are not going to be spending any money in 1995-96. There will be a line item in the budget of 1996-97, but because we have the logs already cut and seasoning in the Dawson compound, we felt that we should have the line item in the budget, mainly to notify the intent.

Mr. Harding: Which compound? Is it the C&TS compound?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It is in the Renewable Resources compound.

Dempster Interpretive Centre in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

On Territorial Parks

On Coal River Springs

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is to monitor and protect the tufa structures in the park, in accordance with the Yukon Parks Act and the Coal River Springs ecological reserve management plan.

Mr. Harding: I did not understand that. What is that $17,000 being spent on, precisely?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It is mainly used for travel - for our people to get there to monitor the site, and to see if everything is okay.

Mr. Harding: It started in 1993-94 as $2,000; it is now $17,000. Are more people driving there to see what is happening?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not have the exact date when it was opened, but it has been opened that long and there is more and more interest in it. It has only been open since the very early 1990s - in fact, it might have been 1992; I am not sure. There has been an increase in activity and there is consequently an increased need for us to be there.

Coal River Springs in the amount of $17,000 agreed to

On Kusawa Lake Management Plan

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is to permit consultation with the First Nations and the public for the proposed park at Kusawa Lake, in accordance with the Yukon Parks Act.

Mr. Harding: I have asked about this park in previous debate. What is the latest vision for the Kusawa Lake management plan? What type of a plan are we looking at?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The main idea of the park is to protect an ecological feature, that being the sand dunes. If the Member recalls, there was a move to put the park in the Carcross area, at the Carcross Desert.

This was rejected quite strenuously by the residents of Carcross. There is a similar feature at Kusawa, and the idea is to create a park in that area.

Mr. Harding: What if the citizens at Kusawa revolt?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: They may very well. That is why we are putting money away for public consultation.

Kusawa Lake Management Plan in the amount of $31,000 agreed to

Park System Plan

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This project will apply the park system plan selection criteria to identify four representative examples of the diverse ecoregions of the southeast Yukon: the Selwyn Mountains, Muskwa Plateau, Hyland Highway and the Liard Basin.

Mr. Harding: Once we identify them, what are we going to do?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The next line item covers that. We identify these areas and then move to protect them in some way.

Mr. Harding: I would say that that is an interesting statement: "Protect them in some form." That opens the door to a number of questions.

How much land is the $100,000 expenditure and the people working on the identification process going to be able to set aside in the parks system plan?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We do not actually have a goal of X square miles, kilometres, or even hectares. Generally, each region is unique, and some may require quite a large piece of land and others may not. For instance, Coal River Springs does not require a large piece of land. It will depend on each area.

Mr. Harding: Tell me more about the government's policy once these areas are developed. What kinds of parks are we looking at? Are they going to be multi-use parks? Are we looking at straight-up parks in the more traditional sense?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Again, I think the Member and I debated this the other day at some length. It will depend on the nature of the area that we are trying to protect. There may be some parks that are merely walk-in and there may be some that allow recreational vehicles or some sort of resource development. It depends entirely on the type of park and the region it is in.

Park System Plan in the amount of $100,000 agreed to

On Resource Assessment

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This project will use the resource assessment process to further assess the relative benefits of three potential park areas in the Eagle Plains ecoregion, as identified through the park system plan in the implementation capital project.

Mr. Harding: The four areas that we are looking at in the budget for the identification and the consideration of all the factors surrounding it is combined over $250,000. Are there any other funds committed to this process of identifying and planning for new park areas?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I believe that this is the total.

Mr. Harding: What kind of time lines are we looking at for the development of these four park areas?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Actually, if the Member wishes, I could give him a fairly detailed look at it, because it does get quite complicated. In the four areas that we are talking about, we want to do the first phase and then there are several phases to this whole thing. If the Member wishes, I will just provide that information.

Mr. Harding: I think that would be helpful. I believe this government is taking a lot of criticism for its views and attitude about the inherent values in our ecosystems. Therefore, I am interested in finding out, in some definitive sense, when we are looking at moving ahead to protect areas. I would be quite amenable to receiving a detailed response from the Minister about that.

Resource Assessment in the amount of $168,000 agreed to

Chair: The time being close to 5:30 p.m., we will recess until 7:30 this evening.

Recess

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

On Territorial Campgrounds and Day Use Areas

On Planning

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is for planning for rehabilitation or reconstruction of campground facilities, including roads, sites, gates, signage, bear-proof garbage containers, painting, et cetera.

Mr. Harding: The increase is for $10,000. It is a budget that has more than doubled since 1993-94. Spending is out of control.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not have any information about the 22-percent increase from 1994-95, so I will have to provide the Member with the information directly.

Mr. Harding: Actually, what I said is that it has more than doubled since 1993-94.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The Member is right. It is 22 percent from 1994-95.

Planning in the amount of $55,000 agreed to

On Western Region

Hon. Mr. Fisher: To provide rehabilitation or reconstruction to major campground facilities, including roads, sites, gates, signage, bear-proof garbage containment, painting, et cetera. Specific projects identified are Wolf Creek and Congdon Creek. The decrease is largely due to centralizing the facilities, replacement responsibility in Whitehorse and replacing it with the liability reduction budget for emergency repairs.

Ms. Moorcroft: Since the Minister has mentioned Wolf Creek, I believe that the Marsh Lake and Kookatsoon day use areas would also fall into the western region.

The Minister has also mentioned liability insurance. I am sure that he is aware that we get complaint calls from residents in the area of these day use areas and campgrounds about rowdy parties, excessive noise and broken glass. One of the suggestions constituents have made to me is that the gates be closed and the hours of use be limited. Is that possible?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It is not liability insurance. It is a liability reduction budget for emergency repairs. I am not sure about locking the gates after a certain hour. I could take that under advisement and discuss it with the department. I have not heard of that request before, but I could talk to the department about it.

Mr. Harding: The Minister mentioned this reduction was due to centralizing facilities. Precisely what does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It means centralizing the facilities replacement responsibility into Whitehorse.

Mr. Harding: What did that entail?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Essentially, what it means is that the planning of the replacement of facilities would be, rather than in each region, centralized into Whitehorse. There would be one person actually doing the planning for all the regions, rather than in each.

Mr. Harding: Was there a reduction of jobs?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: No, I do not believe so.

Mr. Harding: How were the cost savings achieved?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I think it would be in the letting of the contracts.

Western Region in the amount of $67,000 agreed to

On Western Region - Liability Reduction

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is to reduce government liability by ensuring minor and emergency repairs are completed as quickly as possible when capital crews are not in the area.

Mr. Harding: I do not understand precisely what that means. Is it insurance, or what?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This would be small maintenance contracts to local people, rather than waiting for the crew to come out from wherever. It would be for a small contract to do emergency repairs.

Western Region - Liability Reduction in the amount of $30,000 agreed to

On Northern Region

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is to provide rehabilitation and reconstruction to major campground facilities, including road sites, gates, signage, bear-proof garbage containers, painting, et cetera. Specific projects identified are Tombstone Mountain, Five Finger Rapids, and the parks branch workshop.

Northern Region in the amount of $270,000 agreed to

On Southeastern Region

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is to provide rehabilitation and reconstruction to major campground facilities, including roads, sites, gates, signage, bear-proof garbage containers, painting, et cetera. The specific project identified is Teslin Lake.

Mr. Harding: The reduction from two years ago is significant. We had a budget of $162,000 in 1993-94, a budget of $63,000 for last year, and a budget of $45,000 forecast for this year. Why is there a continuing reduction? Was there some big purchase in the last couple of years?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We do not have the exact details, but we feel that it is because there was some major work completed in 1993-94. This is for smaller reconstruction jobs.

Southeastern Region in the amount of $45,000 agreed to

On Southeastern Region - Liability Reduction

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is to reduce government liability by ensuring minor and emergency repairs are completed as quickly as possible when capital crews are not in the area.

Southeastern Region - Liability Reduction in the amount of $32,000 agreed to

On Outdoor Recreation Sites and Corridors

On Outdoor Recreation System Plan

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The 1995-96 plans call for the improvement and enhancement of existing outdoor recreation opportunities in the Haines Junction and Whitehorse periphery areas. The projects include improved trail heads, trail signage and information in the form of brochures and maps. The projects will be implemented in conjunction with local recreation and conservation organizations and First Nations. There is $20,000 for the Haines Junction interpretive plan, $15,000 for the production of Whitehorse periphery outdoor recreation map, $40,000 for materials and installation costs for improvements to existing opportunities and $18,000 for planning, support costs and travel.

Mr. Harding: Is this targeted mainly toward tourists or Yukon residents?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Toward both.

Mr. Harding: How closely does the department work with Tourism in determining the priority areas in this venture?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Apparently the department does work somewhat with Tourism on the particular items, as well as with outdoor recreation users - the snowmobilers club, for instance - and those types of users.

Mr. Harding: What does "somewhat with Tourism" mean?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We essentially sit down and talk with them about what our plans are, and whether or not that fits in with their overall idea of what we should be creating in the way of recreation.

Mr. Harding: What kind of pamphlets are being developed? Are they being targeted toward the tourism market? Are they sent outside the Yukon, or just internally?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: They are given to all our offices. They are in the interpretive centres, and so on. If the Department of Tourism wanted to take them on some of their marketing tours, they could.

Mr. Harding: When the Minister of Tourism goes to Europe, he could put them in his new parka. He could stick them all over the place and deliver them. That is a representation to the Minister of Tourism.

Outdoor Recreation System Plan in the amount of $83,000 agreed to

On Heritage Rivers

On Yukon River (30 mile section)

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is for river campsite monitoring, rehabilitation and maintenance.

Yukon River (30 mile section) in the amount of $13,000 agreed to

On Bonnet Plume River

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is $9,000 for Yukon First Nations and Stakeholder Advisory Committee consultation in Mayo. There is $25,000 for the preparation of a draft management plan. There is $6,000 for public consultations and presentation of the draft management plan to the Ministers of DIAND and Renewable Resources for formal approval and signatures, which is offset by a $20,000 recovery from the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board.

Mr. Harding: Why would the capital budget contain expenditures for things like consultation? Would that not normally be an operation and maintenance budget item, because there is an expenditure on that line item.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That could be, but in this particular case it is part of the overall capital plan for the project.

Bonnet Plume River in the amount of $40,000 agreed to

On Tatshenshini River

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There is $9,000 for Yukon First Nations and Stakeholder Advisory Committee consultation for Whitehorse and Haines Junction. There is $26,000 allocated for the preparation of the draft management plan. There is $5,000 for public consultation, which is offset by a $20,000 recovery from the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board.

Mr. Harding: Is the Minister fairly confident that these consultations are going to take place this year? Things on the other side of the budget seem to be held back for one reason or another. Does he feel confident that we are going to have the consultative meetings?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I have a briefing note here that I could read into the record for the Member's information: "The draft nomination document has been prepared and recently revised to reflect new information pertaining to the geology of the area. It has been circulated to steering committee members for comments before it is finalized. When completed, the nomination document will be presented for signature to the Yukon Minister of Renewable Resources, the federal Minister responsible for DIAND and Parks Canada and the Chief of the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation for approval. The approved nomination document will be presented to the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board in early September 1995 or, alternatively, January 1996."

Tatshenshini River in the amount of $40,000 agreed to

Environment, Parks and Regional Services in the amount of $1,021,000 agreed to

On Resource Management

Ms. Moorcroft: I have with me a publication called "Yukon Agriculture: State of the Industry, 1992-93", which was published by the Department of Renewable Resources in October 1994. It gives an overview of activities and development in the Yukon agriculture industry in 1992-93. The first question I would like to ask the Minister is if he recognizes the picture on the cover of the publication and if he knows where it was taken.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I think it is taken from an airplane, and I believe that is Drury's farm, just below centre.

Ms. Moorcroft: Does the Minister know who took the photograph? He is looking inside for the credit, but there is no photo credit. I am wondering why there is no photo credit along with the normal publishing information.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I can find out. It could have been a Yukon government photograph, in which case there is not necessarily a credit provided. I can find out and provide that information to the Member.

Ms. Moorcroft: There should be a photo credit when photos are taken. I think it is important to pay attention to details in publishing. Over the years, I have noticed that some government documents, which can be the bane of a librarian's existence, come in without the publisher's name or date of publication on them. I think it is important to have that information on the publication.

I have some other general questions regarding agriculture. I would like to know how much agricultural land will be developed in the coming year and if the Minister can provide any information on where and when.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, there are 110 agricultural applications currently on file. Sixty-six are applications subject to the 1982 policy; 10 are active and under review; 16 are in the federal land-transfer process. Forty are on hold as a result of (1) one is subject to the City of Whitehorse agricultural policy; (2) two have been deferred pending adoption of the Mount Lorne plan; (3) seven involve land claims conflicts; (4) four have non-soil based, game-farming and policy concerns; (5) 25 are subject to completion of current agreements or prior commitments.

Mr. Harding: I had some discussion with the Minister this afternoon about forestry policy work and gained a somewhat greater appreciation of exactly how the policy team is heading up the three departments as they converge on the development of the made-in-the-Yukon forestry policy. I wondered if it was engaging in the use of internal or external help to develop the forestry policy. I was mainly interested in whether or not it had engaged the services of any consulting services in the past year or two to do any policy work in the forestry area.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, there have been some consultants hired for small studies, and so on. Trans North Consulting is one that comes readily to mind. I guess if you are asking if we have a professional forester on a standby basis, the answer is no, we do not. If there are specific issues, we will contact the people as need be.

Mr. Harding: I am just trolling to see if there has been any consulting work done in the forestry policy area. The Minister has said that they have given out some small consulting contracts. I would like to ask him what kind of work was done by the consultants. How much was done and who did it?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The latest one was actually in the 1993-94 fiscal year for Trans North Consulting. It was basically talking about a policy development framework that could be used.

Mr. Harding: Would that have been sourced through Government Services or Renewable Resources?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We would have to check on the exact details, but I believe that it was a contract sourced directly through Renewable Resources.

Mr. Harding: I would be very interested in the results of this consulting work. Could the Minister table any consulting work it has done on forestry policy?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I can provide the information that we have for the Member.

Mr. Harding: I would be interested in any of the findings of this policy work that was done on forestry.

I would also like to see any other information that pertains to other details surrounding the subject I mentioned earlier, such as the contracts, when they were let, the scope of them, the costs and so on. Could the Minister provide that for me?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Certainly. We could go back a couple of years.

On Lands and Facilities

On Forestry Facilities (Whitehorse)

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is an item to identify forestry facilities in Whitehorse, to provide for facilities used directly on the forest protection and forest management program, as per forestry transfer agreement.

Mr. Harding: We have had some line items in previous budgets - dollar items - that were identified as potential spots for forestry devolution - construction of forestry facilities in other communities. I believe Dawson and Watson Lake have been left out. Is there some cognizant reason they were left out of the budget this year?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There is a previous line that we have already gone over - Forestry Facilities (Communities). That is where Watson Lake and Dawson would fit in.

Mr. Harding: I am interested in this forestry devolution agreement. The negotiations have broken down, as far as we are aware, quite substantially over a number of issues. There has been some explanation by the Minister in the media of the reason that they have broken down. There has been some discussion about royalties. I believe the Minister - if not the Government Leader - has indicated some of the reasons that they felt there has been a breakdown in the devolution process. There are also aboriginal concerns about the entire process. What level of involvement does the Minister have, as the Renewable Resources Minister, who will eventually become responsible in the negotiations? Is he constantly briefed? Is he aware of every nuance in the negotiations? What level of understanding does he have of the reasons for the breakdown?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Devolution was under Renewable Resources. When the talks broke down on the revenue part of the negotiations, devolution was turned over to the Executive Council Office.

It is my understanding that devolution was transfered to the Executive Council Office because it was looking at more than the devolution of forestry.

Mr. Harding: Could the Minister explain to me the breakdown of royalties, possibly by providing an example of where the breakdown has occurred?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Essentially, there was an agreement reached - I cannot remember the month, but it was some time last July or August. Then the interest in forestry increased because of the La Biche blow-down in southeast Yukon. When the federal government put it out to tender and got $68 per cubic metre for a stumpage fee, they very soon became quite excited about the Watson Lake area, because an industry was developing down there.

Essentially, the federal government - this may be a strong word - reneged on the original agreement that we had reached on the funding transfer.

Our position was that we needed at least the amount of money that was currently being used by the federal government because, even though there were some opportunities for royalties, the whole stumpage reforestation/silviculture aspect had not been thoroughly looked at. Even though there is some potential for revenues coming out of the Watson Lake area right now, and other areas in the Yukon as well, that revenue may not always be there. Whether or not the lumber industry stays at the level it is depends on what happens in British Columbia and other parts of Canada. We did not want to get into a situation where we were counting on revenues for such things as fire suppression or just the ongoing administration of the forest industry, so that is where it broke down.

Mr. Harding: If I understand this correctly, the federal government said that it was attaining a certain revenue injection as a result of the increased activity in a certain area; therefore the agreement that was reached in July is null and void, in terms of funding, and the levels we negotiated were too high because of the windfall revenues from the La Biche area. Does that paraphrase what was said?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is fair. There were a couple of reasons. In the La Biche area, the highway goes right through the forest - the blow-down - so it is very easy access to Fort Nelson, which has a very large mill that is easily able to handle the logs. I am not sure if it was totally that, or if it was partly that and partly the interest that has been shown in the Watson Lake area in the last year.

Mr. Harding: As I understand it, the federal government still has a moratorium on the issuance of new commercial timber harvest permits - is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: My understanding is that the moratorium is still in effect.

Mr. Harding: Is the Minister aware of any new permits issued in the last little while?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: No, I do not believe any new permits have been issued in the last few months.

Mr. Harding: The Minister is supporting the position of the federal government - is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: On the issuance of new commercial timber permits, I am.

Mr. Harding: When would the territorial government decide that position was no longer one it could agree with? What events would have to occur?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There are several things that would have to happen before I would be satisfied there should be new cutting permits. The main issue is to decide what a sustainable cut is - how many cubic metres, or thousand board feet, is sustainable in the Yukon. I do not think we know that well enough yet. I believe the Member opposite has read accounts, as I have, where it goes anywhere from 500,000 to one million cubic metres a year. These are figures that the federal government has stated at various times.

I do not know if that is correct, but I think we need to know before issuing a lot of new CTPs.

Mr. Harding: That is a fundamental point that the Minister makes, and I concur with it. In the new policy development work, will that be the thrust of the work that he has going on in the three departments - to determine through the use of technicians and policy people some sense of what we can sustain?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not think we are going to try to address that fully in the development of our policy. We are going to be making statements, I would expect, to the effect that it has to be sustainable, but I do not think we are going to try to determine, at this point in time, what actually is sustainable. We need a very expensive inventory of what we actually have before we can decide what the sustainable cut is.

Mr. Harding: The problem I have with that is that we are looking at imminent devolvement. Imminent devolvement of the resource, in terms of government to government, can be anywhere from six months to five years. I do not believe, because of that, that the federal government is going to pay for the work. Therefore, we are stuck in a position where we as Yukoners are probably not managing our public resource the best we possibly could to ensure that we get the maximum benefit for Yukoners, and I am sure both sides of the House would agree that that should be a goal.

If we play that kind of tug-of-war with the federal government, does the Minister not think that we run the risk of having the federal government dilly-dally, knowing that the transfer is imminent, and never really getting anywhere in determining those fundamental questions, which the Minister has just said are very important to this whole debate?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Part of the devolution agreement is money for inventory. I am not sure of the exact amount. We would have the ability, once devolution takes effect, to actually expend monies for a full inventory. There has been some work done - a lot of air reconnaissance mapping and so on - but it needs a little more than what has been done so far. There is a lot of background information, but it needs to be researched, compiled and enhanced by quite a bit of groundwork to determine exactly what is out there and what the sustainable yield is.

Mr. Harding: Who would see the definitive terms of the agreement that was reached in July? Which Ministers would it be, or would it be the entire Cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It never did go to Cabinet because the agreement was never finalized. I have been responsible since August of last year, but there are officials who certainly knew more about it than I did. I believe I was the only Minister who was fully briefed on the matter.

Mr. Harding: The Minister stated earlier that an agreement was reneged on. Was there an agreement, or was there not an agreement?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: We had a letter from the federal government, which basically stated its final position. We worked it through and felt that we could live with it. I believe we were preparing to bring the whole thing to Cabinet as the final agreement when the federal government reneged on its original commitment.

Mr. Harding: So, the Minister saw the agreement as the Minister of Renewable Resources. Was Economic Development involved in it at all?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: There was an interdepartmental committee, which Economic Development was part of but, because of the transfer of staff, the Public Service Commission was part of it, as was Government Services, because buildings were transferred. There were several departments on the inter-departmental committee.

Mr. Harding: The Minister stated that he was the only Minister who really saw what was finally reached. It made it as far as him through the briefing, but it did not go to Cabinet. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes, that is more or less what happened. My colleague before me would have been apprised of it, but it never did go to Cabinet.

Mr. Harding: Is the Minister referring to Mr. Brewster? The Minister is nodding, indicating yes.

The Minister has given us some information. I would be interested in some of the finer points of the agreement. Would the Minister be prepared to table - or at least give to me - what was agreed on and being prepared to go before Cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Yes. I would have to check that out. I am not sure about the confidentiality of the various correspondence and the negotiations between our government and the federal government. If it is not confidential, I will provide it for the Member.

Mr. Cable: What sort of facilities will be transferred with the devolution agreement?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It would be all the forestry buildings around the territory, including the forestry building here in Whitehorse by the highway. My deputy minister just told me that there is a hangar that I was not aware of - apparently an airplane hangar at the airport. There is a compound in Watson Lake, for instance - a forestry compound plus a forestry office building. There are forestry houses for forestry personnel throughout the territory, and all of those types of things.

Mr. Cable: What additional facilities would be bought or constructed that would require this line item authorization?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Generally, the idea for the line item is more for some renovation and repair work. We do know of some renovation work that is required. I cannot remember the number now, but I do know there was money in the initial agreement with the federal government to provide for renovations, because some of the buildings are quite badly run down and the federal government is quite aware of it.

Mr. Cable: The transfer takes place later this year. Is it the government's intention to do those repairs in this fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Apparently the federal government is doing a lot of those repairs right now. If forestry were transferred to us, there would just be a continuation of the contracts that the federal government has let. For the ones that are not done, the money will be transferred to us, or if work has been completed, it would be deducted from the original agreement.

Forestry Facilities (Whitehorse) in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

On Special Management Area Planning

Hon. Mr. Fisher: To establish in-line terms for projects falling out of First Nation settlements.

Mr. Harding: This is an area and concept of particular interest to me. What progress is being made in this area? I have heard concerns from First Nations that this government is not committed to this concept, and I would like to know the Minister's views about what work is underway in this area. I would also like to know his policy with regard to this concept that is outlined in our agreements with the First Nation governments.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The line item is for special management area planning for the four First Nations that have already reached final agreement. We have always supported and continue to support protection of areas of significant and special interest to all Yukoners. Chapter 10 of the umbrella final agreement allows for the creation of special management areas through land claim agreements and the Yukon continues to honour all provisions of the agreement. The four final agreements do have provisions for special management areas and that is the idea behind the line item.

Mr. Harding: Are negotiations underway on those issues? What progress is being made in the development of them?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Right now we are getting prepared to start discussions on it, set budgets and identify some of the areas. As the Member is aware, the final agreements were just reached very recently with the four First Nations. They have been very busy, and it has been difficult for them to concentrate on this up until now.

Mr. Harding: Has the government not received any proposals from First Nations for the designation of these particular sites?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: They are designated. They are in the final claims.

Mr. Harding: Has the government not received any proposals for moving ahead in the finalization of them?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: No, not yet.

Special Management Area Planning in the amount of $1.00 agreed to

On Special Projects

On Wildlife Viewing and Infrastructure

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This is to continue development of the wildlife viewing program, including White Mountain, Atlin Road viewing deck interpretive signs, which are planned, but production is on hold pending First Nations approval; Moose Lake, Dempster Highway viewing deck interpretive signs; Top of the World Highway viewing deck interpretive signs; a natural history guide, Dempster Highway; interpretive centre, Dempster Highway - cooperative development with the parks and recreation branch of new displays for the existing centre and new display concepts for a replacement centre; interpretive centre, McClintock Bay - continue development of new interpretive materials and displays to deliver the program in spring, and produce off-season events; Herschel Island contribution to natural history display and assist with site management for island visitors.

Mr. Harding: I believe in the interpretive centre model. I think that it is excellent for locals, but it is also good for tourism. It appears there is a fairly substantial $60,000 reduction in this area. What is the reason for the reduction? Why would that not be a priority in cooperation with Tourism, because I think that the enhancement of the opportunities for viewing nature would be a long-term, beneficial investment.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I think the Minister of Tourism has given some assistance to the Member opposite.

I agree that it is an excellent program. As you can see from previous budgets, there was quite an aggressive move for this type of centre and facility in the past, and we are getting to the point where we continue to need them. We have a lot of the base areas covered, and I believe quite well covered. If the Member is interested, I have photographs of some of the centres, including the Swan Haven facility, which the Member has probably already visited. I agree that it is an important line item, and we will continue to strive to keep it in the capital budget.

Mr. Harding: I am being heckled from both sides. I would like to ask the Minister about another important issue: the wolf conservation and management plan. That plan calls for the construction of some wildlife viewing infrastructure projects. I have yet to be told of any projects consistent with the plan. Can the Minister tell me how he is following the plan in that respect?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I do not know if an actual viewing platform strictly for wolves is what the Member means. I would have to look at the wolf conservation management plan, because I do not know if it actually says that in there. There are wildlife viewing opportunities. I do not believe we have identified one specifically for wolves.

Mr. Harding: Considering the Minister has told me umpteen times that they are following the wolf conservation management plan to the letter, I had hoped he would have taken a look at it and seen the reference to that.

I would ask the Minister to follow the plan a little closer to the letter, review it, and see if there are some areas where they could be more consistent in living up to the spirit of the agreement, which he has held high as the reason why the wolf kill has had some success in the Yukon. I would make that as a representation.

Wildlife Viewing and Infrastructure in the amount of $160,000 agreed to

On Fish and Wildlife Management Planning

Fish and Wildlife Management Planning in the amount of $110,000 agreed to

On Endangered Species - Bison

Mr. Harding: Could I get an explanation of that item please?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: That is to review and update the five-year management plan, which expired in 1994-95.

Mr. Harding: Is that a management plan for bison? What are we planning for the bison? Are we planning to reinstate the herd here in the Yukon? Maybe Buffalo Bill will want to answer that one.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I did cover this in my speech, but I will just read it again. Wood bison, an endangered and protected species, were reintroduced to Yukon starting in 1986. As part of Canada's effort to build up the remaining bison to a level where they will no longer be considered endangered or threatened, the Government of Yukon committed itself to a joint project with Canadian Wildlife Service and Parks Canada to establish one free-roaming wild herd in this territory. A five-year plan was implemented in 1989, the main objective of which was the establishment of a herd of 200 or more animals.

Mr. Harding: It was cleared before I had a chance to speak on the fish and wildlife management planning. I wonder if the Minister could just read the expenditures for that fish and wildlife management planning line item.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: To continue achieving a common understanding of First Nations boards, councils and resource-user organizations; to continue developing geographic information system applications to analyze wildlife population and habitat information; to organize this information for traplines, outfitting areas, First Nations traditional territories and management subzones, and to display the information on maps; to complete the drafting of a fish and wildlife management plan for the Teslin area that addresses specific community and government issues; to begin work on a fish and wildlife management plan for the Haines Junction and Old Crow areas that address specific community and government issues; to complete stakeholder consultation and draft the policy and guidelines for the use of all-terrain vehicles for the purpose of hunting.

Endangered Species - Bison in the amount of $30,000 agreed to

On Agriculture

On Infrastructure Facilities (Abattoir)

Hon. Mr. Fisher: This money is to contribute to the construction of the abattoir.

Mr. Harding: What is the government's commitment to the abattoir project?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I had better reply to this before the break.

The Yukon government has committed up to $200,000 and a piece of land for the construction of an abattoir.

Infrastructure Facilities (Abattoir) in the amount of $50,000 agreed to

Resource Management in the amount of $350,000 agreed to

On Land Claims

Mr. Harding: I see in 1993-94 there was an expenditure of $104,000 and this year there has been none. What is the reason for no expenditure?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Prior to the signing of the final agreement, the government was funding such things as the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and the Mayo Renewable Resource Council. Since the final signing of the land claim agreement, those initiatives are being funded by the federal government.

Land Claims in the amount of nil agreed to

Capital in the amount of $1,989,000 agreed to

Department of Renewable Resources in the amount of $14,528,000 agreed to

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chair, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 4.

Motion agreed to

Chair: Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess at this time?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Recess

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

Bill No. 3 - Third Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued

Department of Tourism

Hon. Mr. Phillips: The Department of Tourism has requested supplementary funding of $257,000 in O&M and $421,000 in capital.

The more significant changes in the O&M side include the following. The marketing branch requires $233,000, due to the increased foreign exchange rates. As Members may recall, our discussions in April 1994 indicated that the department would monitor the effect of our buying power in foreign marketplaces; hence the requested supplementary funding. The marketing branch budget is to be increased by an additional $24,000 to reflect the mid-year transfer of a position from the development branch capital budget.

Fourteen thousand dollars was transferred from the arts branch budget to the administration capital budget for storage units built at the Arts Centre to accommodate the permanent art collection.

Other minor changes in the O&M budget are for miscellaneous payroll adjustments.

Moving to the capital budget, I will highlight the significant changes.

Firstly, in the administration branch, $300,000 has been allocated for the planning and design work for the tourism business centre and downtown visitor reception centre. The department has delayed the purchase of equipment in the amount of $40,000 to partially offset the building planning costs. Also, $14,000 was transferred from the arts branch budget for the permanent art collection storage unit that I earlier referenced.

These branch changes are as follows. The artifact inventory and cataloguing line has been increased by $25,000 due to recovery from the federal government for the cataloguing process. The historic sites inventory line has been increased by $20,000 due to recovery from the federal government for the inventory of machinery and artifacts in the gold fields. An amount of $20,000 was transferred out of the historic sites planning into Yukon archeology. The Canyon City tramway line was increased by $60,000 under the winter works initiative. These additional funds are being used to develop an interpretive plan to guide future development and to purchase logs for future construction at the site.

We have a new line item in the heritage column called "interpretation and signage", as that responsibility in funding was transferred during the year from the development branch to the heritage branch. In the future, it is the intent to incorporate the heritage perspective into signage and also to start the process for river corridor signage. The planned stabilization of the Montague Roadhouse had to be advanced as it had become a public safety issue, and additional signage was also added to that historic site.

The Yukon archeology line has increased for payroll costs. The main development branch capital change was the transfer of signage and interpretation to the heritage branch, as I have previously mentioned.

Finally, in the arts branch, we have revoted funds for the living cultural centre, which were not spent last year. I have listed the highlights of the supplementary requests. If the Members wish, I will move on to Bill No. 4.

We can open up general debate on the O&M and capital now.

Mr. Chair, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 3.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 4 - First Appropriation Act, 1995-96 - continued

Department of Tourism

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I am pleased to introduce the main estimates for the Department of Tourism. The operation and maintenance budget totals $7.3 million and the capital budget is $3.4 million.

I will speak first about the operation and maintenance estimates.

In the administration branch, transfer payments to the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon and the Yukon Anniversaries Commission have been maintained at the 1994-95 level. The budget increase is for a part-time receptionist position and for systems maintenance for a product and inventory database, which will be utilized by both tourism operators and the department.

In the heritage branch, in recognition of the need to further support the role of our community museums in providing critical tourist attractions and serving local communities, additional funding is being provided to the Yukon Historical and Museum Association to support the full-time coordinator position to work on behalf of the heritage community and to the Transportation Museum to assist in creating a director/curator position, similar to those at Dawson and MacBride, which will make the museum eligible for federal museums assistance program project funding.

The former development branch has gone through a refocus exercise and will provide market-driven information, technical and planning assistance, and policy support to the tourism industry, governments, First Nations and other clients. Responsibilities and funding for marketing research have been transferred to the marketing branch.

In the marketing branch, the A-based budget for marketing initiatives in Europe has been increased from $50,000 to $150,000. The 1994-95 campaign, with a forecast cost of $150,000, was partially funded through the economic development agreement. The European market has shown phenomenal growth for the Yukon, and these funds will provide an excellent return on investment for the private sector.

The sum of $40,000 has been set aside for a winter marketing program, in an effort to diversify our marketing efforts for the shoulder season.

The anniversaries enhancement program will continue to be funded at $300,000 in 1995-96. In 1994-95, the emphasis was on developing a comprehensive awareness package. One element of the package involved the development of a multimedia component that included archival research to locate colourful stories of historic Klondike stampeders. This presentation was given to the Chamber of Commerce at a lunchtime meeting yesterday.

The information will be accessible on CD-ROM and will be introduced in the 1995-96 year to lure media from targeted cities to write human-interest stories on local individuals and their gold rush experience. The multi-media event and the new anniversaries brochure will be used as a tool to involve both media participation and develop joint venture partnerships with the private sector and to leverage additional marketing dollars to the program.

As mentioned previously, research specific to marketing and its related position has been transferred to the marketing branch.

The arts sector makes a significant economic, social and cultural contribution to the Yukon, and consultation has taken place with respect to the creation of an arts policy. In the immediate future, the draft of the policy will go out to the arts community and other interested parties for finalization. The policy will confirm the important role of the arts in the Yukon. As well, initiatives in arts marketing and product development in the cultural industry sector are being developed in performing, visual and literary arts.

The budget increase is the anticipated increase over the1994-95 forecast of the Yukon Lottery Commission contributions to arts groups. The grant to the Art Centre Corporation has been maintained at the 1994-95 level.

Moving on to the capital estimates, I will again provide some highlights as there are significant projects and changes in the budget for each branch.

In the administration branch, the budget line contains $900,000 toward a tourism business centre, $50,000 for initial planning for the Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre, $50,000 for initial planning for the Yukon Historic Resources Centre and $50,000 for miscellaneous furniture, equipment and systems for the entire department.

The tourism business centre will consolidate office space for tourism employees and house the visitor reception centre facilities. The tourism store-front operation will be a heritage-theme anchor point for the Whitehorse waterfront that is functional, multi-purpose, year round and accessible, and will provide easy public access to tourism services amalgamated into one location for greater efficiency, private sector access to tourism's resource information and expertise to facilitate development of market-driven tourism enterprise, and year-round, easy-to-find Yukon and Whitehorse visitor reception services capable of promotion summer, as well as winter tourism activities.

The existing visitor reception centre will be retrofitted to become the Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre. This unique tourist attraction will focus on the Yukon's Beringia ice age heritage.

The Yukon Historic Resources Centre will be located adjacent to the Interpretive Centre. The Resources Centre was previously identified in the 1991 museums policy.

The buildings serve the following three functions: one - program support to heritage resource management and development programming, including multi-purpose storage and laboratory research space; two - long term technical and program support for the new interpretive centre, existing and future community museums, and First Nations museums; three - to facilitate land claims obligations by providing support for First Nations heritage, training and archeology, palaeontology, oral history, artifact conservation, historic sites preservation, development and resource management.

In the heritage branch, consistent with government priorities outlined in the December 1 throne speech, heritage tourism infrastructure will continue to be developed in support of the upcoming anniversaries and economic diversification. Under museums assistance, the major capital element, the MacBride Museum, will receive $200,000 to support the installation of a sprinkler fire control system and to address the fuel contamination problem. The exhibits assistance program will provide another $75,000 to MacBride for its gold legacy anniversary display, and a further $25,000 will be contributed to the Dawson Museum's international Gold Rush travelling exhibit, which is now up at the Arts Centre. Additional museum artifact inventory and cataloguing work will be carried out at the Dawson, Teslin, and Keno museums.

Historic sites development will continue at Canyon City near Whitehorse, in cooperation with the Kwanlin Dun First Nation. Archeological research will continue in advance of building restoration and in order to provide information for use in site interpretation. Archeological design work will be completed for the planned reconstructed buildings and dock. With the implementation of the Yukon land claims agreement, several historic sites planning initiatives will be launched. The historic sites planning program will support joint planning exercises with the Vuntut Gwitchin for Rampart House and Lapierre House, with the Na-Cho Ny'ak Dun for Lansing Post, and with the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation for Dalton Post. The development of Fort Selkirk will continue in cooperation with the Selkirk First Nation and will see continuing implementation of the site interpretation and preservation plans.

Under historic site signs and interpretation, a guide to Yukon River points of interest will be prepared, and border crossing signs will be replaced this year.

Funds have been provided to the Yukon archeological program to support resource management responsibilities and to implement a planned joint archeological project with the Ta'an Kwach'an Council. The industry services branch will oversee secondary analyses of the visitor exit survey data and produce reports to meet industry requests.

The arts branch will continue to work with First Nations on the concept of a living cultural centre, and funds have been identified to conduct a feasibility study after consensus has been reached among First Nations.

At this time, I will be pleased to elaborate on any of these initiatives and take questions from the Members opposite.

Mr. Harding: I would like to begin by discussing the most important issues with my colleagues opposite. Of course, those are my constituency issues.

The Minister and I have had numerous discussions in the past about tourism potential in the Campbell region, of both the rubber-tire variety and the probably more economically beneficial wilderness variety. As the Minister is well aware - because of his trip to Faro in July, when he spent some time with me and talked to people in the community, as well as through the numerous pieces of correspondence from me and discussions that have been held between people from the community and the department - that there are a number of quite keen volunteers in the community working on trying to do something that is extremely difficult, which is forge a relationship of cooperation and trust between communities that are significantly detached, not just in a geographic sense but also in the sense of being a community. The communities of Ross River and Faro, for example, are very different. One is an aboriginal community that has been there for thousands of years. Faro is a mining community that was built in the 1960s. The longest standing residents are in the 24- or 25-year range.

There is a large difference between the communities. The community of Watson Lake is the junction for a trek into the Yukon through Whitehorse or through those communities on the Robert Campbell Highway. The challenge of getting all those interests, First Nation governments and long established organizations - such as the Chamber of Commerce in Watson Lake - and the community of Faro to work on a joint project to improve wilderness tourism in that area is not an easy task, particularly with a fledgling organization and an area that has previously been untapped.

As the Minister is aware, the people in the community have done a lot of work to put together a proposal for economic development through the economic planning agreement, and to try to develop a strategy for the area as a region, not just a single-destination community. Even though we sometimes look at our community in Faro through rose-coloured glasses, we do not believe we are a destination people will flock to. However, we do believe that central to southeastern Yukon has an untapped wilderness resource that could be economically sustainable for all the communities in the region.

With that approach come the problems that I referred to earlier of trying to encompass all the different people and communities. There is some longstanding distrust. Since the initiative started in Faro, other communities will be distrustful of it and may want to test the water to see if they will have a say in the development of initiatives that come from the plan.

I believe, from talking to people within the organization, that they have hired a consulting firm to conduct some initial studies in the area and to hold some meetings. They have had some moderate successes, and they have been having a few small frustrations. We knew that it was not going to be an easy task. Probably the biggest frustration has been trying to ensure that we had the funding. It has sort of been an on-again, off-again, half-again process. I believe that the approach they are taking is proper.

What involvement is the Minister's department having with the project right now? Is the department providing any support if the Faro Wilderness Recreation Association has requested any support? What does the Minister think he can offer the people in that region who are trying to do something with an area that has not been utilized much for tourism.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I am certainly encouraged by the energy of the people of Faro in trying to develop their area as a tourism destination. It was only a few years ago that people in Mayo started this similar kind of initiative and there are more and more people pursuing this initiative every year.

Tour wholesalers in the Yukon are selling specific tour packages in the Mayo area. I understand that one tour wholesaler, with a new package for this year, has sold out. The potential to build the tourism industry is there. The Faro area is an extremely beautiful area and tourists probably have a better change of seeing wildlife on the road between Faro and Watson Lake than any other road in the territory at the present time. I think there is good potential in the area.

To answer the Member's question about what the department is doing - department officials and I went to Faro to meet with individuals. We supported the proposal in the economic development agreement so they would receive the money for their consultation.

Just as late as last week, I met with the consultants myself. They interviewed me as part of their process. We are very supportive of the Faro organization developing a tourism plan for the area eventually. It is in a key location because of the highways and because loop roads are sort of the road to the future in tourism, and we will see benefits flow to that area each year.

Mr. Harding: The Minister is also aware that they are not just focusing on a loop road for rubber-tire traffic. There are people who are starting up businesses for fishing excursions, for horseback wilderness treks and, of course, there are outfitters in the area as well. There are river trips in the stretch between Ross River and Pelly, and even all the way down to Dawson. Those are beautiful river trips, so there are some real opportunities.

Last year, nine French tourists stayed at Sally's Roadhouse in Faro for a while. They ate and drank quite a bit and had a great time, and then they tootled off down the river. I think they spent an enjoyable time there and they also spent a few bucks, which was very nice for the community. More of that is what we need and the community is certainly all behind it.

What I am worried about is that we have some people who are interested there and they are putting in a tremendous number of volunteer hours. They run up against roadblocks every once in a while - I mentioned the funding earlier - and as the Minister is aware, there are sometimes tenuous situations that occur between the communities, where long-standing distrust makes it more difficult to further the cause.

I am glad of the Minister's support. The Minister has had meetings with the consultant and he has had previous meetings with the representative of the FWRA, and that is good.

I would like to ask the Minister if the department can offer, in a proactive sense, a helping hand to the organization in terms of helping them along with the consultants through these early stages.

I am worried about a sense I get from the Members of some serious burnout. I do not want to see all of the work that has happened in the last two years fizzle away now, because the mine is up again. I want to see the diversification continue. I want to see the economic ties being built there. We are spending taxpayers' money on it right now through the EDA, and I think the investment is wise, but I would just like to see things continue to move. I am not making a specific request. I just want the Minister to be cognizant of that and would like the department to continue to be present to offer assistance and be supportive of the people who are working on it, because I really do fear that if we have some real troubles with this consulting study, or if things do not move ahead, that we may take three steps forward and two steps back. That would not be a good situation.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: All I can say to the Member is that we have supported the initiative in Faro in a very positive way up until now. I do not see any change there. We are always looking for a new quality product online. That is going to be a problem we are going to experience as more and more people want to come to the Yukon. Wilderness is a very popular item that people are looking for.

We will be doing all we can and providing training seminars, as we have in the last few weeks, and working with the people in Faro, as we have in the past, to encourage them to keep up the good work and develop a good product, so that we can market it in the future.

Mr. Harding: One of the other concerns I have about the area is the upkeep of the roads. When the New Democratic Party was in power, quite a bit of money was put into BST upgrading on the Campbell Highway. One of the things the Faro Wilderness Recreation Association suggested to me is that that would be beneficial. It would like to see - from the Carmacks area to Faro - some capital upgrading work done, so that tourists get a sense that they are not going to have their RV drop off the face of the universe if they head down that road.

The FWRA sent a letter to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, who is responsible for highway maintenance. It was upset about the Tuchitua maintenance camp. Some of the more enterprising members of the FWRA were actually working on wintertime recreational activities for tourism this winter. They want to see that road maintained. They know that it is never going to be the autobahn, but they certainly think that there is a reasonable level of maintenance that has to be provided.

For all of the discussion - I just got a note from one Member who said that former Curragh drivers had said that the highway was not in good condition. I think we had a good snow winter last year. Personally, I had many, many - I am not exaggerating - complaints about the Tuchitua road camp and poor road maintenance.

I drove on the road last weekend, and it was very scary. I almost went off the road three times. Traffic was moving at an absolute crawl. I am just thankful that I did not meet any tractor-trailers, because it was extremely treacherous. The shoulders were soft and the road was in bad shape in a lot of areas.

The Tuchitua camp is located on that highway. That camp and the maintenance work undertaken by other camps give us a sense of security, and it is also an economic infrastructure matter. A basic level of service has to be provided. I have expressed concerns many times to this government about the Tuchitua camp and about no capital upgrading work being done on the Robert Campbell Highway. The Association of Yukon Communities passed resolutions at their recent conference calling for exactly what I had been calling for, and I was pleased to get that support from the rural communities.

This is not a matter that only comes out of my mouth. It also comes out of the mouths of a lot of people I have spoken with, and it has been reiterated to me time and time again in phone calls. Since the decision was made during the winter, I have been in each community two to three times. I have talked to a lot of people, and I get this over and over again.

I think that one of the advantages of this Campbell region is not just the loop route, as the Minister said, but also the Hyland Highway, the South Canol Highway and the North Canol Highway. They provide some meat for the theme that we like to use, which is the road not often taken, or the wilderness roads less travelled - that sort of theme. That is one of the benefits of that area - the fact that we have these numerous roads.

I have met people living in Faro, when I have been on fishing trips up the North Canol Highway or when I have gone up the Hyland Highway to do a bit of goat hunting or Dolly Varden fishing. One runs into people who spend a lot of time in those areas. They enjoy it because it is not as busy as the Alaskan roads or the RV parks in Whitehorse.

There is a market for it. The Minister hit the nail on the head when he talked about Mayo, the Silver Trail, Elsa and that area. They have done quite a bit in those areas in the last little while, and I think that we can do the same thing in Faro. I know that people are interested in having an interpretive historical centre in Faro and in trying to develop some sites that would make it more attractive and interesting to people from elsewhere, and this would complement the wilderness side of things.

Does the Minister share my concern about capital upgrading on the highways and having a respectable level of road maintenance on those highways?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Certainly. I am one who believes that if we are going to have highways in the territory, they should be maintained in a safe manner - especially if we are going to be marketing them for tourism. Visitors should feel safe enough to drive on the highways. The Member mentioned that the road was in very poor shape this spring. I can tell the Member that I have driven down that road in the spring of the year when it is maintained year-round, and this is the time of year when that road is in miserable shape. That used to be the case with all the other roads in the territory. The Dawson-Mayo road was as narrow as the Campbell Highway is now. You had to be really careful of the shoulders when driving on the road. I think it is a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Part of the problem is that you have thousands and thousands of tourists coming up the main arteries. As the traffic increases, as mining and other exploration occurs in some of these areas and more development takes place, there will be a need to improve some of the other roads.

Personally, I hope that is sooner than later. For instance, on the Campbell Highway, if Cominco decides to go into production, we may see some rapid, major upgrading on that road, depending on the route the company chooses to haul its ore. That will benefit the tourism industry in the long run, as did the road to Faro. I can remember driving the road to Faro years and years ago. It was quite a narrow road similar to the South Canol Road. When Cyprus Anvil started to haul ore, the road was upgraded, chip-sealed and now many tourists are heading in that direction and utilizing the road.

I think that is going to happen over time. I do not think it will happen overnight. I think people have to be realistic. The government cannot be pumping millions of dollars into a road where there is very little traffic at the present time.

This situation has always happened. Take the Alaska Highway for instance. For years that highway was in terrible shape at the north end. There are 75,000 or more people driving up that highway every year. Finally, over the last three or four years, we have improved the highway so that we are not pounding the heck out of all of the vehicles that go up there. Many tourists are now looking at those roads and deciding to travel a little further. Some tourists are a little more adventuresome than others, and the Member mentioned that he ran into some people on the road that did like the Faro region, because there were not wall-to-wall campers everywhere.

I ran into a group of three campers at Little Salmon when I was there a summer ago and I told them about the South Canol and the Campbell Highway. I got a nice letter from them about six months later, in which they told me they went up the North Canol, down the South Canol, and spent an extra week in that region. There are people who like to spend time in a less-populated area, but that does not mean we should not eventually develop the area so that more and more of these visitors can travel up and down the highway.

The other suggestion I would make to the Member for Faro is to encourage the people from the Faro association to attend the various marketing seminars that we hold from time to time. I know they are held mostly in Whitehorse but that is done because we bring in people who have limited time. They are usually experts in the field and cannot get around to all the Yukon communities, as it is very costly. We just had some in town here a few weeks ago and they talked about the Japanese market, they talked about the European market and they talked about how to do trade shows.

The fellow teaching how to do trade shows was probably the best in Canada - perhaps in North America. It was an outstanding presentation, and it cost $10 per person to attend. That is the kind of expertise we can offer the people of Faro and the people in the tourism industry in order to get involved and develop a product that is more market driven. I think that we can be helpful in that way.

As for standing here and giving a Member a commitment that I will urge the Minister responsible for highways to put several million dollars into the Campbell Highway immediately, I will always encourage the Minister of Transportation Services to improve and upgrade those roads, because I am a firm believer in the circle roads. If we have a series of those in the future - and I see that one day; perhaps in eight to 10 years there will be four or five circle trips people could make in the Yukon - instead of spending six or eight weeks in Alaska, tourists will spend six or eight weeks in the Yukon, and Yukoners from all over this territory will see benefits from that.

It has to come in stages; we cannot do it all overnight. In answering the Member's question, I do support upgrading and improving the roads, but it cannot be done overnight.

Mr. Chair, in view of the time, I move that you report progress on Bill No. 4.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Motion agreed to

Speaker resumes the Chair

Speaker: Could I have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?

Mr. Abel: The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 3, Third Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 1995-96, and directed me to report progress on them.

Speaker: You have heard the report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: I declare the report carried.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I move the House do now adjourn.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to

Speaker: This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9:29 p.m.

The following Legislative Returns were tabled April 12, 1995:

95-2-71

Whitehorse General Hospital elevators: designed to accommodate stretchers (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 1786

95-2-72

Thomson Centre staffing requirements; improving occupational health and safety of staff (Phelps)

Oral, Hansard, p. 1786

95-2-73

Lake Laberge investigation re contamination of fish (Fisher)

Oral, Hansard, p. 1728

95-2-74

Lake Laberge contaminant levels in fish: testing program continuing (Fisher)

Oral, Hansard, p. 1728