Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with silent prayers.

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

Are there any tributes?

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Forest Week, which runs from May 2 to May 8. This is the traditional occasion for all Canadians to take stock of their forest heritage.

The Yukon government is a proud signatory of the national forest strategy and the national forest accord. As well, our own made-in-Yukon forest strategy demonstrates our commitment to responsible and sustainable forest management.

This year's theme for National Forest Week is "Forest Fires, Handle With Care". Given the experience of last year and the predictions of a very dry year to come, Mr. Speaker, this theme is very relevant to the Yukon Territory.

Our government is proud of its fire smart initiatives to reduce the risk of fires in Yukon communities. We recently increased our fire smart funding by 30 percent to enable more communities to take part in this program. We are also supporting public education on forest fire risks by providing some 500 teachers manuals that will provide both teachers and students with important information about the elements of forest fires. This particular initiative was funded in part through the Yukon forestry training trust fund and the Canadian Forestry Association.

Mr. Speaker, with forests covering nearly half of the Yukon's landscape, we recognize that forests are integral to our environment, economy, culture, traditions and history. They are vital to realizing our aspirations as a society and as a territory.

Tomorrow, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Renewable Resources, I will be officially presenting framed copies of the national forest accord in English and French to the people of the Yukon.

These beautifully framed documents will be on display in the foyer of the Legislative Assembly all next week. I invite all members to examine them and to help make National Forest Week a truly significant event.

Mr. Ostashek: On behalf of the Yukon Party caucus and the office of the official opposition, we are pleased to join with members in paying tribute to National Forest Week.

As pointed out, this year's theme, "Forest Fires, Handle With Care", is a very appropriate theme after the forest fires we experienced in the Yukon last year.

Here in the Yukon, we have come to know all too well the damage that fires can do to our land, to our homes, and to our families. It is therefore appropriate that we take every opportunity to encourage greater public awareness of Canada's forests.

Ms. Duncan: I rise on behalf of the Yukon Liberal caucus to pay tribute to National Forest Week.

Although Yukon's contribution to Canada's total forest production is small, Yukon is still ahead of its neighbours, the Northwest Territories and several Maritime provinces. The numbers are small nationally but are not to be underestimated in terms of our territorial economy.

It should also be noted that next week we will celebrate a tribute to another national industry in which Yukon plays a prominent national role - National Mining Week.

The Yukon Liberal caucus supports the development of the Yukon forest industry in a sustainable manner, mindful of the trust that has been placed in us by the generations that will follow.

The Yukon Liberal caucus also respects and applauds the contribution the mining industry makes, and we look forward to a Yukon-made regulatory environment that will be supportive and respectful of the development of both of these industries.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: As May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month, I rise to pay tribute to the women and men who are working to bring an end to sexual assault in our territory and our country.

In 1997, Statistics Canada released a major study on sexual assault that revealed some startling figures. It showed, for example, that the vast majority of victims - 82 percent - were women and girls, although recent news coming out of Cornwall, Ontario, and ongoing accounts from residential schools remind us that many men and boys are by no means immune.

We know now that most assaulters are not strangers to their victims. They are trusted friends and acquaintances, and often family members.

About 62 percent of victims are children 18 and under, and a third of those are 12 and under. Those are just the ones we know about. Many people do not report sexual assaults to police.

The Yukon and Northwest Territories have the dubious distinction of the highest rate of police recorded sexual offences in the country. We can take some comfort in the fact that awareness of sexual assault and its impact is growing in Yukon society. Increased awareness is leading to increased reporting. For this, we can thank many organizations and government departments that are striving to open our eyes to the problems and work toward finding solutions.

The Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre has scheduled activities for May that include displays at the hospital and in local businesses, information sessions for young people, workshops on sexism in the media, self-esteem, assertiveness and women and the law.

A speakers survey series has also been organized this year. The Yukon Medical Association will hear a presentation on Rohypnol, the date rape drug. The Youth Advisory Committee will hear a presentation on dating violence and sexual harassment at school, and F.H. Collins career and personal planning class will hear a presentation on sexual decision making.

Last Friday, the all school councils conference heard a presentation on healthy sexuality in children and adolescents.

I want to congratulate all the women and men who are working to raise awareness of this problem, and I invite all members of the House to take part in the organized activities during Sexual Assault Prevention Month.

Mr. Phillips: On behalf of the Yukon Party caucus and the office of the official opposition, I rise to pay tribute to the sexual assault awareness and prevention month as an opportunity to raise awareness about this type of violence and its cost to society as a whole.

Sexual assault is a form of violence that women in particular have become victims of. Sexual assault not only inflicts physical pain, Mr. Speaker, but it also robs individuals of their sense of safety and their right to control their own bodies. The prevention of rape and sexual assault is about changing attitudes and behaviour. As members of this Legislature and members of our society, it's incumbent upon each and every one of us to ensure that this violence will not be tolerated and that sexual assault will not be condoned, and we must take every opportunity to challenge society to reexamine beliefs about what sexual assault is.

I'd like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the hard work that the Women's Directorate, Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre, women's shelters throughout the territory, victim services and others who continue to work hard on behalf of women to help end sexual assault and other acts of violence against women.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Yukon Liberal caucus to pay tribute to Sexual Assault Prevention Month.

This May, there are a number of events planned for Whitehorse. Some of these activities are discussions on sexism in the media, assertiveness training for women, and a video night.

Research shows that leadership, education, training and awareness are the keys to preventing sexual assaults. We also know that the rate of reported violent assaults in the Yukon is quite high. Research shows that the number of sexual assaults that are not reported are even higher.

A preventative approach to sexual assault through education will hopefully reduce the number of sexual assaults in the Yukon.

Our thanks again to the members on the planning committee and Kaushee's Place, Kwanlin Dun Wellness Centre, Les Essentielles, Mental Health Services, Red Cross Abuse Prevention Services, Yukon Status of Women's Council, Yukon Health Promotion Unit and the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre.

Speaker: Introduction of visitors.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce some members of the Yukon child care community, and I would just like to take a moment to introduce them: Jasbir Randhawa, the chair of the Yukon Child Care Association; Judy Wengzynowski, who is the vice-president of the Yukon Child Care Association; Michelle Campbell, the secretary of the Yukon Child Care Association; Evelyn Thorogood, member of the Yukon Child Care Association, and of course we have Sandra Beckman, who is the chair of the Yukon Child Care Board and Irene Szabla, who is a member of the Yukon Child Care Board and also the executive director of the Child Development Centre.

I'd like to ask members to join me in welcoming our visitors today.

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: You can tell, Mr. Speaker, we're getting close to the end. Mr. Speaker, I have today for tabling the 1997-98 Yukon Health and Social Services Council annual report. In addition, I have the 1998 health status report, and I also have two legislative returns for tabling.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have some documents for tabling, including some legislative returns.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I have a legislative return.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Speaker: The chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, appointed by the 29^th Legislature. The report deals with the year 2000 issue.

Speaker: Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motions?

Are there any statements by ministers?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today to advise the House of a significant program enhancement that reflects our commitment to Yukon children and families. This commitment is the cornerstone of our policy of fostering safe, healthy communities.

I am pleased to announce that an additional $350,000 is being added to the direct operating grant to licensed family day homes, child care centres, and after-school programs in the Yukon. This additional investment will ensure better service for our children, and their parents, by increasing support to the operators and workers who provide that service.

It will also allow the department to lift the moratorium placed on this grant by the previous government in 1995. The direct operating grant was first introduced in 1991 as a way of helping child care operators gain a high level of care for our children in the territory. This is an important goal, and our government is pleased to make this investment in nurturing our youngest children and helping them prepare for the future.

At present, all child care centres receive the direct operating grant, as well as two out of five after-school programs. Twenty day homes now receive the grant, while 34 do not. With this additional funding, all licensed child care operations in the territory will now receive financial support.

This increase in grant funding is retroactive to April 1 of this year. The first payment to operators is scheduled for mid-July. Payments will be made on a quarterly basis to all programs, based on information submitted by the operators.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this grant is to assist child care facilities with their ongoing operating costs. The amount of the grant will vary for each facility, ranging from $425 to $1,000 per month. The formula for determining the grant for each facility includes such considerations as the number and ages of the children who use the service, and the levels of staff training.

Lifting the moratorium and extending the direct operating grant is a practical response to an identified community concern. For child care operators, parents and children alike, this will help provide stability and continuity of service, and gives a clear signal of the importance our government places on quality care for Yukon's children.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Yukon Party caucus and office of the official opposition, I am pleased to take this opportunity to respond to the minister's statement regarding the direct operating grant for family day homes, child care centres, and after-school programs.

Child care programs in the territory play an integral role in the development of our children's well-being. With more parents choosing to enter the workforce these days, child care centres throughout the Yukon have grown.

In the territory, there are over 250 child care workers who serve between 800 and 900 families. These individuals are dedicated, committed and deserve a whole lot of credit for what they do day in and day out.

This program was first initiated almost 10 years ago. The direct operating grant provides direct funding to eligible child care programs to assist with the ongoing costs of operations. Over the years, this grant has helped to increase wages in the child care field and has assisted many centres to provide better care.

Unfortunately, cuts to cost-sharing programs from the federal Liberal government since 1995 have put a tight hold on child care subsidies to parents and grants to day care operators. Reductions in funding, coupled with the rising cost of living, have resulted in a number of pressures exerted on our parents, as well as on child care workers in the territory.

By extending direct operating grants to all licensed child care operators in the Yukon, child care services will be afforded an adequate level of stability and continuity and will certainly help relieve some of the financial pressures that have been experienced by those operators who have not been receiving grants in the past.

While we on this side of the House are pleased to offer our support to this initiative, there is a question or two that I would like to raise with the hope that the minister can address in his rebuttal.

The minister stated that an additional $350,000 is being added to the operating grant. While I realize this money will enable all licensed child care operators to become eligible for the grant, could the minister tell me if the current formula for the grant will continue to be used?

Perhaps the minister could also advise whether any changes to the program have occurred during his tenure or are being anticipated in the near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Yukon Liberal caucus to respond to this ministerial statement on the increase to the direct operating grant for Yukon day homes and day cares.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Liberal caucus has raised this issue a number of times over the past two and a half years. This is a good investment in the Yukon's children and corrects a longstanding inequity for child care service providers.

During the Health budget debate at the beginning of this month, the minister and I had a lengthy discussion about this issue again. At that time, the minister said that he had found $200,000 to put toward the direct operating grant for child care centres, but he was still looking for an additional $114,000 to $150,000 so that he could fund all day cares and day homes under the same formula.

Now, the ministerial statement is not clear on this issue, so I wonder if the minister could clarify it for the record: will all Yukon day cares and day homes be funded now under the old formula that has been in existence since the early 1990s, or are we creating a new one?

And another question for the minister, as well. The original child care strategy called for an annual review of the direct operating grant and the subsidy with a view to following the cost of living. Will the minister be starting an annual review of these two child care funding programs in the near future?

Lastly, it was pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago that it's unlikely that there were many members of this Legislature that have been around a child care centre in the recent past, and it was suggested to me that it might be advantageous for members of this Legislature to take the opportunity to tour a day care or a day home in one of their riding so that members could see the full value of the programs that are being delivered for the youngest of our constituents. It seemed like a good idea, and I hope the ministers can avail themselves of that opportunity in the near future.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, I'm very pleased with the response that we've received from our colleagues across the floor. This is, I think, an important day. It signals a reinvestment in child care. It signals a reversal, I think, of a policy that inhibited the development of child care in this territory, and I can confirm that yes, the formula that has been in existence will be applied. There is not going to be a differential formula. It will be the same formula that has been in existence, so everyone will be receiving the funds on the same basis.

With respect to the additional money that I was looking for, I went back and rather seriously went through the budget and discovered $150,000 in the Liberal caucus fund that I could appropriate - I'm being facetious, Mr. Speaker.

We were - I think the term is re-profiling. We manage to look and see how we could work around with some of our health care programs, and how we could make this happen, and we're very pleased that we have been able to accomplish it.

I'd like to thank the folks in the child care community for being very constructive and working with us on this. This was an issue that was identified by the child care board very early on as a priority issue, and of course our friends in the Child Care Association were strong advocates for it. It kept reminding me of our moral obligation to our youngest citizens in this territory and I'm very pleased that on behalf of this government, we can make this move.

Thank you.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. On July 1 - Canada's birthday - Northwestel will be giving rural Yukon a present. They will be shutting down the Ruraltel and the Cell 400 system. The Cell 400 system was shut down earlier in Whitehorse after it was replaced by the Cell 800 system. But in rural Yukon that is not going to happen. The only alternative being left open to rural Yukoners is a much more expensive M-SAT system, or the old manual mobile system.

Is the minister aware of this situation, and what does he plan to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm very, very much aware of the situation that we're in. We've been working with all Yukon citizens within the process of the CRTC. As the Member for Klondike knows, it was from the initiative of this government that we asked for a nationally funded formula that would look to providing, firstly, to people who do not have telephone service, so they'll cut the extension of telephone service in those areas to make sure that it's quality telephone service and to make sure that it's affordable. That is what this government has done.

Mr. Jenkins: Wow. There was an answer. We're not even talking about that issue, Mr. Speaker. The issue is that the Ruraltel and the Cell 400 system is being shut down in my constituency. A lot of the individuals were initially serviced by the old land line. That was removed by Northwestel. These individuals were offered Ruraltel. Now, that is being shut down. All that is happening is that the telephone costs are going up and up and up for rural Yukon, and the service is staying the same or deteriorating.

Can the minister advise the House if he has sat down with Northwestel to determine what options, other than the M-SAT and manual mobile, could be utilized to actually improve telephone service in rural Yukon at a reasonable cost?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I'm so used to the Member for Klondike cherry-picking and taking from this to mix with this. I mean, it's quite a cornucopia of affairs that he does manage to mix. It is one system. We are working with Northwestel. As the member well knows, we have presentations, and we're leading the field on behalf of the people of the Yukon Territory; we do expect that we'll have quality service. We expect that we'll have an extension of service, and we're going to continue to work with Northwestel and, indeed, the people of the Yukon Territory so that we might be able to afford this. Has this been around historically? Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has. Has this government gone ahead and moved forward to correct this problem? Yes, they have.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Speaker, Northwestel is still the most profitable telephone company operating in Canada. In rural Yukon, the costs are rising and rising and rising. Now they're eliminating the service entirely. Has the minister sat down with Northwestel, the CRTC, and explored other ways of delivering telephone service specifically right now in my constituency where the present service is going to be eliminated effective July 1? Nothing is there to replace it. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: It seems that I'm not the only one with a hearing problem in this House, Mr. Speaker, so I will try to speak a little louder, if that might help.

This government is working within the process of the CRTC. Yes, as a matter of course, we do sit down with Northwestel. Yes, we are in control of the situation, as much as we can possibly be in control of the situation. We're working as a meaningful partner. Our principles are the extension of service to where there is no service, for quality service and affordable service.

Mr. Speaker, we'll continue to work in that manner. There's an established process. The CRTC is going to be, in early June, announcing what their decision is, and we'll continue to work with all partners within the process.

Mr. Phillips: My question's to the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, our office received a phone call today from a concerned citizen, advising us that the safe school coordinator is being laid off this summer. I wonder if the minister could advise the House if, in fact, the information is correct. Do we have any contingency plans in the Department of Education to ensure safe schools?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: There are a number of ways that we are working to ensure safe schools within the Yukon school system. This morning, under Tributes, I was paying tribute to it being Sexual Assault Prevention Month during the month of May. We had our first Gender Equity Awareness Week this month, in which there were a number of activities taking place in public schools across the Yukon. We continue to support the gender equity in public schools, as well as the work in schools in developing safe school plans.

Mr. Phillips: I don't think the minister answered my question, Mr. Speaker. I was asking her if we were laying off the safe school coordinator.

The reason that I ask this question is very apparent, in view of the tragedies that occurred both recently in the United States and Canada. The point is that these tragic incidents register with me is that they can happen anywhere, and I don't believe it would be an advisable course of action, at this time, to be eliminating or reducing any measures that would reduce school safety.

I'd like to ask the minister if she concurs with that thought.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, the duties of ensuring that we have safe schools will be done within the Department of Education and on an individual school basis. The duties of the safe school coordinator will be absorbed by the coordinator of career and personal planning. We have a comprehensive counselling framework for students.

I do agree with the member that it's important to have good counselling available and also to have non-violent crisis intervention. We have a team of people available where there are crises in schools to respond, whether there is management of assaultive behaviour needed or non-violent crises.

Mr. Phillips: Well, previously, Mr. Speaker, there have been some incidences of violence in our schools. I think that's one of the reasons why we had a coordinator. Thankfully the actions that have been taken appear to be working in some way, because I'm not aware of any recent reports.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about what has happened recently in Colorado and what has happened in Alberta. In light of these recent tragic incidents in southern Canada and the United States, have we changed any of our security provisions in any of our schools to ensure that this type of incident could be or would be prevented here?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that we all share the concern about the incidents of violence that occur at any schools and the recent highly profiled events in Colorado and, yesterday, in Taber, Alberta.

We have an abuse prevention program that's being offered in many schools. There is also emergency preparedness planning and that occurs with teaching staff - and safety practices - and we will continue to look at ways to improve that and to ensure that, in all schools, we're aware of dangers and doing everything we can to keep our schools safe.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we stood in Tributes today to national forestry work style; now we need some substance.

I asked the Minister of Renewable Resources during general debate about Yukon's readiness with regard to the devolution of forest resources, and I got an answer about job descriptions.

Development of a strategy for managing the Yukon's forest resources was a pretty clear job description and the Yukon forest commissioner failed miserably. Although the development of a forest strategy was announced, it did not have the support or endorsement of Yukon First Nations.

My question is for the Minister of Renewable Resources. Is the Government of the Yukon still discussing a joint forest strategy with Yukon First Nations and when can we expect some results?

Mr. Fentie: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as we have stated earlier in this Legislature on the development of the Yukon forest strategy, we are doing that in partnership with the federal government and the Yukon First Nations. The completion of the strategy is very much about that partnership and we will continue on that basis in the ever-evolving process of forest management in this territory.

Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for Watson Lake needs to pay a little more attention. In January of this year, the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations outlined the First Nations' position publicly. She said, at this point they do not endorse the Yukon forest strategy. That's very clear.

Is the government still negotiating a joint forest strategy with Yukon First Nations, and when can we expect some results?

Mr. Fentie: I think it's the Liberal leader who should pay attention. The Yukon First Nations have a right, as governments, to take their own position. We will continue to work with them and forest management in this territory and have done so from the beginning of the process in the Yukon forest strategy and will continue to.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I know the Member for Watson Lake is quite sensitive about the lack of results from his very expensive commission. He was given one task by the Government Leader, and he failed to deliver.

Devolution is scheduled for April 1, 2000. Will the Government of the Yukon have a deal in place for joint forest management by the devolution deadline?

Mr. Fentie: I would suggest we do. It's called the Yukon forest strategy. The federal government has committed to using that strategy as a framework for forest management in this territory. The First Nations are invited to participate, but as governments they have a right and a choice to make of their own free accord.

Mr. Speaker, today in the Yukon Territory, thanks to the hard work of this government through the Yukon forest commission, we are now much better able to manage our forests so that they are environmentally sustainable, economically viable and socially acceptable.

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the Minister of Justice. The minister has been asked questions in this House in the past about the new RCMP headquarters building that's being proposed, and I understand that the minister has had ongoing discussions with the RCM Police about the type of facility that's going to be built. And I understand also that there are a number of options now being discussed, one of which would be the inclusion of a remand centre in the new facility.

What option is this minister pushing for in her discussions with the RCM Police?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, as I've stated previously in the House - and as the member has just said in the preamble to his question - we are in discussions with the federal government and with the RCMP about the possibilities of a new public safety building addition to the Whitehorse RCMP building.

At this stage, the RCMP have to proceed to Treasury Board in order to get approval for the funding to build a new building, and we have indicated that we may be interested in participating, and have not had a decision communicated to us at this stage, from the federal government.

Mr. Cable: Could the minister be a little more informative? What sort of decision date are we talking about? What sort of construction date are we talking about? And what sort of injection into our economy are we talking about in the way of dollars?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member could pick up the red line to Ottawa. That will be before Parliament. The Treasury Board, as I stated in response to his first question, has not made a decision. I cannot stand here and tell the member what the final outcome will be or what the final cost of the project will be.

Like the federal government and the RCMP and the Yukon government, we are considering the options available, and a submission to Treasury Board is forthcoming.

Mr. Cable: I'll pass along the minister's comments to Jean when I'm talking to him tomorrow morning.

Now, the minister's about to go around the communities on her restorative justice initiative. Is the moving of the remand centre out of the jail one of the things that she is going to be discussing?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: As the member knows from the issues bulletins and discussion papers that have been introduced on restorative justice, there are a whole range of subjects that the public will have an opportunity to comment on, and I know the member's keenly interested in that, and I expect he's fully informed.

We can benefit from hearing what the Yukon public has to say about how to change the face of the justice system. We know we need to replace the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. The reason that we have not made decisions on the size and nature of that replacement is that we do want to hear from the public, and we'll be making final decisions in future budget years, after we have concluded the restorative justice discussions.

Mr. Ostashek: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development on the state of the Yukon economy. We've all heard this minister's political rhetoric about all the wonderful things that this government is doing to tackle Yukon's current economic recession - a recession that this government has helped create, I must say.

Reality is that unemployment is increasing; Yukoners' dependency on social assistance is increasing while the population is continuing to decrease, as Yukoners give up hope and head south to find work.

I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Development if he can tell us, does he believe that the economic downturn is at the bottom now, or is it still going to get worse?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I don't think we've done anything to contribute. I think we have been helpful participants, in terms of improving the economy - nothing to contribute to the downturn, Mr. Speaker.

There are some interesting, optimistic signs. I see that the retail sales in February climbed 10.2 percent. That's compared to a national average of a climb of 3.8.

That's a significant increase. That's a good indicator of economic activity.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, there are the major construction projects announced. It looks like the pool facility will be moving ahead in Whitehorse, and the rec centre in Watson Lake. We're working to try and access a secure supply of timber for the new $10-million or $12-million mill investment down in the Watson Lake area.

Of course, the Shakwak contracts have been recently initiated. That's going to put a lot of Yukoners to work.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, we've been working to increase activity in the mining centre through the creation of the mineral exploration tax credit.

The immigrant investment fund that we've just initiated in a span of six weeks sold some $25 million in outside investment in the Yukon Territory. We've negotiated devolution. We have oil and gas land sales underway.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think in a whole range of areas there is a lot of good activity and a bright future for the Yukon.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, I said when I started my preamble that we've heard this minister's political rhetoric, and once again we've heard it - once again we've heard it.

The question was: has the economy bottomed out in this minister's mind? He didn't answer it. All we get is some more political rhetoric of all the great things this government is doing. Well, I can assure the minister that training trust funds and hosing down the communities with community development fund grants do not substitute for economic leadership - none whatsoever. If you are going to train people to go to work here, there should be some optimism for them getting a job here.

I want to know from the minister: has the economy bottomed out? Is it going to turn around now, or is it going to have to wait until after the next election?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not rhetoric. These are concrete action initiatives implemented by this government in this budget. Is the member saying that the small business investment tax credit - the government actually lowering taxes and trying to attract new small business investment for Yukoners in their own businesses - is somehow rhetoric?

That was the member who brought in the largest tax increase in Yukon history when he was Government Leader. He call them obscene, Mr. Speaker. Now, he responds by saying what we are doing - concrete initiatives - is rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon workforce, in size, is the second largest in the history of the Yukon Territory since they've been keeping statistics. The retail sales are on the move - all of these concrete initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite of the Yukon Party and the Liberals just voted against a supplementary budget that was going to put Yukoners to work. They voted against it because they couldn't bring themselves to support anything in any positive way or bring anything constructive into the debate here.

Mr. Speaker, we're confident that we are doing everything possible to work with Yukoners on concrete action to improve the economic fortunes of this territory for the long term.

Mr. Ostashek: If this minister doesn't start looking at the short- and medium-term, there will be no long term.

The concrete actions of this government clearly aren't working. Unemployment continues to go up. There are more people applying for social assistance. And this minister, with his political double-speak in his attempt to impress Yukoners that the worst of times are over, is quite contrary in what his short-term economic outlook has said - that things are going to get worse.

High rates of economic growth will not take place without major investments in the resource sector. I'm asking the minister when that is going to happen.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the opposition could get some consistency. They say we're doing nothing right now to create jobs. So, we table a supplementary budget on the tails of a very good job-creating initial budget for $8 million and they vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, what are they thinking when they do things like that? Why are they trying to do that to Yukon people who want to go to work?

Let me tell the members opposite that this government is working on trade and investment initiatives and tourism initiatives that have never before been initiated in this territory, and they are starting to show positive results.

Mr. Speaker, if the price of copper and the price of zinc were 60 cents and another few cents on copper, the numbers, economically, for jobs in the mining industry, would turn around like that.

But Mr. Speaker, this government can't control the price of metals. But what we are doing is working on new initiatives to help diversify this economy, working with the business community, with labour, with communities.

Mr. Speaker, they say that the CDF is hosing down communities. All of those initiatives are put forward by the people, largely in rural Yukon, as their priority initiatives, and this government is proud to stand behind them and fund them, because we believe the people of the Yukon -

Speaker: Minister, time has expired.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of Government Services. Yesterday I asked questions about this local hire NDP government's decision to award a $1 million architectural contract to a company from Vancouver.

My understanding is that approximately $50,000 of that work will be done by Yukon companies. I asked the minister twice yesterday to explain why bids from eight other companies, including the designers of the hospital - an outside company - a local company; the designers of the Thomson Centre - an outside company - were rejected for technical reasons. The minister refused to answer the question. There's nothing quite like the NDP non-answers.

Can the minister explain why such an unusually high number - eight out of 11 companies - were rejected for technical reasons? Why were so many companies rejected?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, I think I explained this yesterday, Mr. Speaker. There were 11 proposals received. All 11 were partnered in one way or another between Yukon and outside firms.

We constructed the technical evaluation in such a way that 20 percent of the technical evaluation points were allocated for local content - which included such things as the identification of major members of the project team, level of local and northern knowledge, ability to provide immediate response to questions, receive direction, visit the construction site. We constructed this in that manner.

Now, when the member says there were eight out of the 11 rejected, yes. The normal practice is to take the top-ranking bid and the other two bids that are within 10 percent of that, in terms of points.

In this case, there were three bids within that range. The others were dramatically different. The next Yukon company, I believe, was some 100-point difference.

At that point, at that juncture, the price envelopes are opened. That's the way that the two-envelope system works; that's the way it's always worked.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, another one of the recommendations of the local hire commission was that the government discuss specifications and tendering plans with industry to ensure all opportunities and efficiencies are taken into account and that potential vendors or manufacturers are not excluded. This is recommendation no. 15, just to refresh the minister's memory.

This should mean that, when the government plans to tender a $1-million contract for a new continuing care facility, they would logically speak with local companies about it.

Would the minister table the minutes of the meetings that took place with local companies before the contract was tendered?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I can provide what information I can for that. I do know that we have had discussions in the past with architects on the whole question of local content. The benchmark of 20 percent of technical evaluation points was the percentage recommended by the Yukon hire commission.

Ms. Duncan: I appreciate what the minister has said. He can table what discussions took place. He didn't commit that a meeting took place on this particular contract.

The other point that I'd like to raise with the minister is with regard to the advertising for the architectural design on this $14 million continuing care facility. Of course, as the minister full well knows, it's the largest architectural design contract in recent memory.

Can the minister indicate why it was advertised in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton before it was advertised locally by the local hire NDP?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: It is my understanding it was advertised in both jurisdictions. Sometimes we don't have control over when certain things come out in the papers, but we have advertised - It's our direction that all things are to be advertised both locally and outside.

It's also on the Web too. When this came out, we had considerable interest, because it is posted on the Web.

Mr. Phillips: My question is to the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. The ombudsman's 1998 report shows that the communication link between the public and the government is getting worse, not better. Complaints are up, and one of the reasons that the ombudsman gives for this situation is that department decision makers are not providing enough information rationale in explaining to the citizens what the department decisions are about.

Mr. Speaker, the reason that department officials in many cases can't provide a rational explanation for a decision is because there is lacking rationale. The decisions are made by the political masters for purely political reasons, and government officials are expected to fall on these swords to protect their NDP ministers from political meddling.

Is the minister aware that the morale in many government departments is at an all-time low because of this political meddling, and will he himself ask his other ministers to cease and desist?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a good thing that the session is over. The opposition is completely out of questions now. I'm expecting that the next question, if the Question Period were to be extended another five minutes, to hear about the stop sign in the member opposite's riding.

Mr. Speaker, that's complete gibberish that the member was reading out, I don't know who wrote the question for him, but I think they should have researched the report a little bit more.

Mr. Speaker, we will be responding to the ombudsman's report. I think it's important to always try to improve communication between the bureaucracy and the public. We are a very open government, a very accountable government. We supported the creation of the Ombudsman Act when we were in opposition, and we feel that it is important to continue to try and improve communication at all levels between the political levels of government and the public, as well as the bureaucracy and the public, and I think the ombudsman's office can provide some valuable advice and tools to help accomplish those tasks, and that's what he's there for.

Mr. Phillips: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission doesn't care much about the low morale in the Government of the Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for this low morale relates to this government bringing in its friends from the NDP from outside to fill senior public service positions. One day these individuals are here as tourists, and the next day they're working for the government. Career civil servants are blocked from advancing in their careers by these NDP parachutists filling positions with the Yukon government, giving rise to resentment in morale.

What's the minister going to do about this situation of low morale in the Government of the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, such nonsense, but anyway I will attempt to answer. I don't really want to dignify the question, but I think what the member is saying is completely ridiculous. He's talking about parachuting people in. Our record in terms of approaching local hire is very good. Just on the business contract side alone, we have increased - from the time of that, the dark days of the Yukon Party administration in this territory, which so many people remember - the amount of local Yukon contracts from 59 to 89 percent as a result of the local hire initiatives of this government.

So, the member opposite I think is ...

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please. Order. Order.

Hon. Mr. Harding: ... without any factual basis. So, Mr. Speaker, I welcome another ...

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: The Minister of Government Services, order.

Hon. Mr. Harding: ... I welcome him to stand up once again and read out his supplementary.

Mr. Phillips: I think Yukoners are wise to the ways of the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission in his belief that, if you say things enough times, they become the truth. I think Yukoners know what the truth is with respect to whether Yukoners are getting jobs in this territory, Mr. Speaker. There are no jobs. There is 17-percent unemployment, which is probably going to go up next month as a result of the great actions of the Minister of Economic Development, also responsible for the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister again - because he's not answering the question - whether the minister likes it or not, morale is low in many government departments. It's because of the political interference of his ministers. I'd like to know what he's going to do about the low morale presently in the Government of the Yukon. What's he going to do about that?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would not know the truth if he fell over it.

The member regales us with fanciful tales that he creates for Question Period on a daily basis in this House. This is just another very clear example of that.

Mr. Speaker, there's not low morale in the public service. I think the morale, comparatively speaking to the dark days of their administration, is quite good. This government is a very activist government on the economy and on the environment, with the arts and health and social services, and has our bureaucracy working very, very hard to deliver good health care, good education, good economic programming and good tourism initiatives in a whole range of areas.

So, Mr. Speaker, we do make public servants work hard, but we don't apologize for that. We also recognize the very valuable work that they do for the Yukon public and appreciate it very much.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that when we have advice from the ombudsman, it is listened to, and we intend to do that and, as a bureaucracy, I think, overall, the Yukon government can always improve, and I think that's the rule and those are the suggestions that the ombudsman is to make, and does make, and that we will respond to.

Of course, I want to say again that we're very, very proud of the work that public servants do. In a whole range of areas, this government has people working very, very hard for the public of the Yukon.

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

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I move that 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.

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

Some Hon. Members Agreed.

Chair: Fifteen minutes.

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Committee is dealing with Bill No. 18, Second Appropriation Act, 1999-2000.

Chair: We are on the Department of Education, dealing with the proposed amendment. Is there any debate on the amendment?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Chair: Member for Riverdale North, on a point of order.

Mr. Phillips: Point of order, Mr. Chair. I was on my feet in the debate. As you've made a ruling in the past that the first member on their feet in debate gets to speak, I definitely rose before the Minister of Education, and should have the floor, Mr. Chair. And I ask you to respect the ruling you made the other day.

Chair: On the point of order.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, on the point of order, the Member for McIntyre-Takhini - the Government Leader - was on his feet and adjourned debate last night in the Education supplementary budget. I was on my feet prior to your calling for opening debate in Committee of the Whole, and I ask to be recognized.

Chair: On the point of order, the Chair did recognize Ms. Moorcroft as the first member standing, so Ms. Moorcroft, you can continue.

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Chair: The hon. Member for Riverdale North, on a point of order.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, I request that you call the Speaker back into the Chair so we can deal with this point of order.

Chair: On the point of order, Mr. Phillips, this is not the first time the Chair has explained the rules to you. There is no process to challenge the Chair's ruling as you have described. There is no point of order.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague, the Government Leader and the former Minister of Education, for standing in for me during Education supplementary budget debate yesterday evening. I understand that he enjoyed the experience.

Last night, I had the very pleasant responsibility of supporting Yukon Writers Week. The Yukon has a strong arts community and the large attendance for a public reading at the Arts Centre demonstrated that once again. I know that we all wish the young authors who are at the conference today and tomorrow well.

I hasten to observe, Mr. Chair, after reviewing the Blues, that the craft of creative fiction was alive and well on the floor of the Legislature last night. The Member for Riverdale North, in the guise of supporting education, has introduced an amendment to cut the Education budget, to cut the budget for education and training.

Mr. Chair, we will not be supporting his amendment. I find it hard to fathom how the Member for Riverdale North can characterize cuts to the Education budget as a friendly amendment. There's nothing friendly about cutting the Education budget.

The Member for Riverdale North might consider a future in writing fiction. Certainly he's got his facts all wrong.

The Member for Riverdale North, as is his wont, has fabricated yet another so-called crisis. Mr. Chair, I met with the Vanier School Council in January and again toured that school. I heard from the school council and administration about a number of concerns, including a request for better cafeteria facilities, a gym floor, new shop space and new home economic facilities, among others.

Our budget, based on previous discussions with the school community in indicating that cafeteria improvements were a priority, allocated funds for planning cafeteria improvements. We subsequently received a request from the school council to place the gym floor as their first priority, and we are considering that, Mr. Chair.

However, we believe, on this side of the House, that it is essential to review the facts. Our research to date indicates that synthetic floors are safe and do not pose unnecessary risks. There are synthetic gym floors in use in many Yukon schools and, indeed, in schools elsewhere in Canada.

I want to note that the present Christ the King Elementary School, which was Christ the King High School, until the Yukon Party grade reorganization caused a wholesale reshuffling of Whitehorse elementary and secondary students and millions of capital dollars in renovations, Mr. Chair, has a synthetic floor. The Catholic high school students, in their old location, had a synthetic floor, as they do in their present location.

Currently, we have no facts to support the view that the floor is unsafe. Kids occasionally get hurt in all gyms. Our research to date supports synthetic floors as being as safe as wood ones.

The school council has indicated they are compiling data to support their case that there is an increase in injuries as a result of the floor composition. The department is following the rational approach of doing more research and checking information.

Our facilities staff is dealing with the Flooring Standards Association and professional groups to get the facts. I will continue to work with Vanier School Council and other school councils to meet the needs of students and the priorities of the education community. Cutting the Education budget, in the meantime, is not a rational or a sound action.

Now, let's deal with the reason for the Yukon Party's mischievous amendment. The Government Leader has accurately portrayed it as playing games. This supplementary capital budget is about addressing unemployment by job creation and by training. The Arctic Winter Games Host Society, the Yukon Party, the Liberal Party, the Yukon Gymnastics Association and Polarettes Gymnastics Club have lobbied for an extension to the gymnastics training centre at Vanier school. We agreed to put money in the budget to support this project.

Now both the Yukon Party and the Liberal Party are smarting from their decision and seeking to deflect attention from their support for this project. I might point out that the opposition has, in no small measure, contributed to dividing the community.

Mr. Chair, I want to read into the record the letter signed by John Ostashek, leader of the official opposition, to me about the extension of the gymnastics training centre. "The Yukon Gymnastics Association and the Polarettes Gymnastic Association have approached the Yukon Party caucus seeking support for an extension of the training centre located at the Vanier school. This would provide for a larger gymnastics area, a viewing room as well as washroom facilities.

"The Yukon Gymnastics Association and Polarettes Gymnastic Association have a proven track record of accomplishment in assisting our youth. Further, such an expanded facility would help the Yukon prepare for the Arctic Winter Games, as well as assist in our bid for the 2007 Canada Winter Games.

"Accordingly, the Yukon Party caucus is in support of this initiative, not only for the reasons outlined above, but also because of the much-needed jobs such an expansion would create at a time when jobs in the Yukon are so scarce. We urge you to give this application favourable consideration."

That's the letter from the Yukon Party, Mr. Chair.

The Liberal Party writes on the signature of Pat Duncan, the Porter Creek South MLA and leader of the Liberal Party: "The gymnastic facility in Whitehorse, which is attached to the Vanier school, is a good example of a cooperative effort between government, who own the facility, and the volunteer community, whose drive and efforts initiated and continue to support the gym.

"It has come to my attention that it is now time to expand and support this facility to ensure that it will meet appropriate standards for training competitors in the next Arctic Winter Games and for the Canada Winter Games in 2007.

"On behalf of the Yukon Liberal caucus, I would like to express our support for the expansion of the gymnastics facility. This worthwhile project will enhance our community and the many young people who will continue to use this facility well into the next millennium."

Mr. Chair, our record, and our commitment to capital spending in education is second to none in Canada. Certainly our record of working with education partners, of building new schools in rural Yukon and supporting improvements and renovations in all Yukon schools, far exceeds the record of the Yukon Party.

Mr. Chair, last night during debate, the Member for Riverdale North also spent a considerable amount of time speaking about training trust funds, since he has put forward an amendment to reduce the line item for training trust funds in the capital expenditure vote.

Again, Mr. Chair, the Yukon Party critic made some statements that are very inaccurate. Mr. Chair, the Member for Riverdale North, in speaking about training trust funds, seemed to have conveniently forgotten some important facts.

In March of 1995, the Yukon Party contributed $200,000 to the Association of Yukon Communities to create a training trust fund in order to train employees and members of the Association of Yukon Communities.

Mr. Chair, in doing that, they recognized the importance for community organizations to be in the driver's seat when it comes to meeting their training needs. The member did not establish a training trust board with representation from Yukon College. I would ask him why.

In March of 1996, the Yukon Party also contributed $100,000 for the Ross River training trust fund, again without involving Yukon College, and placing Yukon College with a seat on the training trust fund board. I would ask him why.

Is it, in fact, Mr. Chair, that the Member for Riverdale North, when he was in this seat as Minister of Education, recognized the importance of supporting communities in meeting their training needs?

It is important to work with Yukon College. The Member for Riverdale North made the statements that I was not doing that and, Mr. Chair, I have to advise him of the facts. We have and do support Yukon College. We will continue to support Yukon College.

Yukon College is involved in meeting training needs in a wide variety of areas right around the Yukon. Yukon College administers training trust funds and also participates on the boards of numerous training trust funds in the territory. We have seen, just during the last year, partnerships with the college, advanced education and First Nation groups, to support the airport training project with Kwanlin Dun, Old Crow level 2 carpentry, a Burwash equipment operator training, oil and gas training for Old Crow, oil and gas training for Ross River, and a pre-trades qualifier course in Ross River, so that members of that community can be ready for potential employment when we build the new school this year. We also funded a White River equipment operator training program, carpentry in Ross River, oil burner mechanic training, competency-based apprenticeship training, R2000 training, and carpentry at many communities.

Training trust funds were used to help support employment and training for residents of the Yukon. Yukon College staff and instructors have been involved.

I have given direction to officials in my department to work with Yukon College. I've had numerous meetings with the college board and with the college officials and board chair to ensure that we are collaborating effectively in meeting the training needs in the Yukon.

Mr. Chair, the funds in this line item in the supplementary budget are to support education and training, which is much-needed at this time in the Yukon. We will not be supporting the Yukon Party amendment to cut the education and training budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Chair, I'm very pleased to see you've finally recognized me.

Chair: Order please. I would ask the members not to heckle the Chair.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, I was not heckling you. I just said I was pleased, Mr. Chair, that you finally recognized me. That was a compliment, Mr. Chair. I was happy you recognized me. You know how I feel toward you.

Mr. Chair, my question is for the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education obviously hasn't done any homework on this matter and I'm very disappointed in that.

I want to deal first with the issue with respect to the training trust funds that the minister talked about. My point last night to the acting Minister of Education was that he changed his tune, and both the Liberals and ourselves had complaints from Yukon College - and they've complained to the minister because they told us that some of the training trust funds were being initiated without any consultation, that the college was being brought in after the fact.

I want to point out that on May 21, 1992, the then-Minister of Education, who was Mr. McDonald, said, "The Yukon training strategy reaffirms Yukon College's leadership role in providing post-secondary education and the delivery of training programs in the Yukon."

Leadership role and the delivery of training programs - that's what he said then. Today he's saying something altogether different. So, I want to point that out to the member that things have changed, and that was my point last evening.

Now, back to the issue at hand with the gym floor at Vanier school. Mr. Chair, I received many, many phone calls last night and this morning from parents all over Whitehorse regarding the Vanier gym floor.

I was just passed messages since we came into the House here - four other people want me to call them back regarding the gym floor at the Vanier school.

I also received some information that the minister is aware of - and conveniently ignores - that at the present time there are approximately 400 students at Vanier school; 100 - 25 percent - of those students at Vanier school have a condition called Osgood-Schlatter disease. It's tendonitis of the patellar tendon. It's caused by physical activities on a hard surface. One hundred kids in that school have the problem.

There's a petition signed by many of the students at the school that's been given to the Department of Education, complaining about the floor. The physical education instructors at the school are curtailing activities on the gym floor because it is causing injury.

Now the minister last night - Mr. McDonald - argued that we have 11 other schools with this kind of floor, so this floor should be just fine. Well, this floor might have a similar surface to 11 other schools, but I'll tell you, there's a problem with the floor. Students are getting hurt; the government is ignoring it.

The school council has sent a letter of February 9 to the minister which lays out - and I'll read it to the minister, because obviously she wasn't listening last night, because she was at another meeting - and it says that priority number one - and the minister should listen closely if she doesn't think there's enough evidence - is that: "The school and the administration are united in our decision that this project warrants the greatest urgency. Using the priorization criteria for capital projects for the Yukon schools, this is clearly a health, safety and legal requirements issue.

"Presently the physical education staff is compiling data from local physicians and physiotherapists with respect to the greater incidence of injury at VCSS..."

A search has recently been initiated for a study that clearly indicates an increase of injuries as a result of this floor composition, and we hope to provide the data to the department shortly, and I've been provided with some data from a Dr. Nigg, who is a professor at the University of Calgary in the kinesiology department. He worked for the department of engineering and medicine. He's a world expert in the area of sport surfaces, and he stated that the major factor that leads to this kind of injury is a hard surface, this type of hard surface.

Although he hasn't done studies on this particular floor, the evidence from the students that are turning up with injuries and severe pain is overwhelming.

The other thing that the minister should realize, Mr. Speaker - Mr. Chair; I didn't mean to elevate you, Mr. Chair - is that the problem with this particular disease is that it's permanent. The damage is permanent to these kids, and at the present time we are using that facility for activities for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of soccer kids and other activities in that gym. We're putting the younger kids in there as well, and people in the medical and the physical education field believe that this could be causing injuries or could cause problems in the future with these kids.

Mr. Chair, the bottom line is, the harder the surface the more injuries the kids get and, once they get it, they've got it for life. We've got 100 kids already, out of 400, who are diagnosed with the problem in this school.

What I tried to do last night, in a friendly amendment, was take some money that the government knew it wasn't going to use for eight months or so, and move it into an area to deal with an emergency. When the Government Leader, the acting Minister of Education at the time, felt he was under attack, he decided to launch a personal tirade against me. That's what they do all the time over there when they feel that they are under fire. Yet, dozens and dozens of parents and hundreds of children are concerned about this.

The minister said she talked to the school council back in January, Mr. Chair. Well, since January, she's got a letter about an urgent problem.

What I tried to do last night was take some money that the government admitted last night it had no use for at the present time - it wasn't going to use it - and put it into the training trust fund line item and would decide on its use months down the road. Months down the road.

Mr. Chair, I'm not trying to play any political games here. What I would urge the minister is - I don't have the ability, as an opposition member, to add $150,000 to the minister's budget. We can't do that in opposition. The only thing I can do is help save the minister some money from within her budget by removing $150,000 and urging the minister to allocate it in some other area, knowing that the minister can come back in the fall with a supplementary to cover off the item.

But the minister can do something even more expediently than that. The minister can stand on her feet here today and agree to bring an amendment forward to this budget to add $150,000 to replace the Vanier gym floor, and I'll withdraw my amendment, and she can have her training trust fund totally intact, even though it won't be used for eight months, but we'll get the floor fixed so these kids quit getting hurt.

You know, Mr. Chair, this is the kind of thing that drives parents crazy, when there's an identified problem. The government's spending money like crazy; it's got a $67-million surplus - bank account; savings. It's got a health and safety issue affecting a quarter of a school's population, with a good chance that, before this government fixes it, it'll have affected 50-percent of the school's population. They've already been given notice that there could be a liability issue here, and the government will be liable for the permanent damages it's causing to these children.

This has got to be fixed. If the government doesn't do anything now, Mr. Chair, we'll go a whole another year with those kids using that gym with it causing permanent damage to some of those kids - lifetime damage. I just don't understand it. I'm sure the parents don't understand it. The physical education people don't understand it. The teachers don't understand it.

Why is the government being so stubborn, Mr. Chair, at the expense of our youth? What's wrong with this government that's supposed to care about people? I mean, you know what we're going to do, Mr. Chair? The government's going to back itself into a corner, because it thinks this is a big political game, not do anything to the gym floor, and who's going to pay the price? These children.

These children are going to pay the price and Yukon taxpayers, because they're all going to the doctor to get their knees fixed, so the health care costs will rise. Probably, within the next few years, the health care costs will be well over the $150,000 that the government is trying to save here in their stubborn approach to dealing with this issue. Then, if somebody launches a lawsuit, a class action or a bunch of people launch lawsuits, Mr. Chair, it might cost us way over $150,000 to deal with this problem.

What the heck is the matter with this government, Mr. Chair? Doesn't it care about these children? It says it's not an emergency; it's no big deal; we have these floors at other places. Well, tell that to the injured kids. Tell that to the student whose dream was to get into the military, the Armed Forces, and was turned down because he has knee problems. He had this disease in his knees that was caused by the minister's school floor, that she won't fix because she says it's not a problem. Tell that to that youth.

Lois Moorcroft, Minister of Education, you've got to be proud of that one.

My colleague said "political bullheadedness". That's a mild term for this approach in this issue, Mr. Chair. A mild term.

The minister sits there smiling. Well, I'll tell you what, Mr. Chair, it's not funny to those students; it's not funny to those teachers; it's not funny to those parents. The minister should wipe the smile off her face because I don't think it's funny at all. I don't think it's funny at all.

Mr. Chair, the bottom line here is the minister has the ability to make a decision today to solve this problem. She has the school council wanting them to solve it; she has physicians wanting them to solve it; she has the school administration staff wanting them to solve it; she has the hundreds of parents of the students wanting them to solve it, and she certainly has the students wanting them to solve the problem. What more evidence do you need when you've got 25 percent - 100 kids out of 400 - who already have a diagnosed injury, diagnosed disease, that they'll live with for the rest of their lives?

I mean, some days, Mr. Chair, this job is so frustrating when you're dealing with people who take a stubborn attitude that I and other people just can't understand. They sit over there and pretend to be so sanctimoniously caring for people, and when it comes to an important issue like this, they want to make a political football out of it.

They could have solved this problem without it even being raised in this House if they had reacted when they got the letter on February 9 from the school council and saw that it was a problem, Mr. Chair, and put some money in the budget. But do you know what, Mr. Chair? They put $500,000 in this budget for a training trust fund that doesn't even exist yet and they don't even know what it'll be, but when it's a health-and-safety issue and they know and they're aware of it, they didn't bother putting anything in the budget. They ignored it, and now they're embarrassed and now they're backed into a corner and now, Mr. Chair, they're making all kinds of personal attacks on members on this side of the House - the Liberal member and me - for trying to make a political issue of the matter.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chair, the Liberal member and I - and even the Member for Mount Lorne, because, Mr. Chair, my nephew and their family live in the member's riding in the Mount Lorne riding. My nephew's a young athlete who played in that gym and wants to have a career one day in the NHL, as other kids want to play in soccer leagues and do other things. Some of these kids will never do that now because of the inaction of this government and this minister. I can tell you that the parents of my nephew and the parents of all those other kids who go to that school from all over the Yukon Territory, are going to be very upset with the lack of action from this minister on this very important issue.

Mr. Chair, I know the government's probably going to vote against this amendment. I challenge the minister, if she really cares - I'll withdraw my motion in a flash if the minister comes into this House with an amendment for $150,000, adds it to the budget and allocates it to fixing that gym floor. I'll withdraw my motion and applaud the minister for doing it, even though I had to prod her along, Mr. Chair, for several weeks to get her to move on it.

Will the minister do that?

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, on the amendment to the supplementary budget, which speaks to allocating funds to fix the gym floor in Vanier Secondary School, the floor at Vanier Secondary School's big gym is in a state of some disrepair. It needs to be resurfaced, and the amount estimated is approximately $150,000.

This resurfacing will address the number one capital health and safety concern of the Vanier School Council. After some discussion with a member of the Vanier School Council, it is my understanding that the project will be completed by Christmas of this year, one way or another. The council's working within the system, and they feel that they are being listened to by department representatives.

It's still unclear to me as to where the $150,000 will be coming from. I know that the debate last night with the mover of the motion, the Member for Riverdale North, and the Government Leader, focused totally on taking the funds from the training trust fund. Rather than taking this money from the training trust fund, I wonder, like the Member for Riverdale North, if the government would be willing to increase the size of the supplementary budget by taking funds from the $67-million surplus that the Government Leader informed us of yesterday.

I know that the Minister of Education has been willing, in the past, to look at amending budgets to support school projects. During debate around the Bea Firth motion to take money out of highways in 1994, and put that money toward building a new school in Mayo and the Grey Mountain School, the minister spoke quite eloquently about the need to put money toward schools and the need to create employment. I'll read from that debate.

It says, "The Alaska Highway amendment certainly provoked debate, an acrimonious debate, at that. On December 13, 1993, the Minister of Education launched a vitriolic attack on the Member for Riverdale South for proposing an amendment to spend $4.5 million on two new schools." There's a lot of déjà vu in this.

"This is the minister who is supposed to be responsible for the education of Yukon school children, who might have been grateful for the support of his school initiatives, especially when this minister campaigned on the issue of a new Grey Mountain School. We have seen the Government Leader indulge in the same kind of personal attack again tonight. It was a pathetic display, and that kind of personal attack is what I really think troubles our constituents. I certainly hope that I will not be hated for speaking up for my constituents in wanting to contribute to the budget process. I may be naïve, but I thought that that was what I was elected for, and what we are all elected to do. The amendment is sensible, the government reaction to the amendment has been completely unreasonable."

There's a lot of déjà vu in that particular quote. Either way, Mr. Chair, the government has told us numerous times over the past 35 days that the whole point behind this year's budget, and supplementary budget, was to advance capital projects to get people working.

Here's a chance to do just that - address the health-and-safety concerns of the Vanier School Council and do that. The Vanier School Council says they're willing to work to a resolution with this government. Students from all over Whitehorse attend Vanier school, and numerous user groups - including soccer and basketball users - have access to the gym as well.

Taking the money from the surplus and adding it to this budget would be a sensible approach - to use the minister's words - to this issue. The Yukon Liberal caucus would support that approach.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Chair, let me begin by responding to the Member for Riverdale North. He had a number of issues that he brought forward during his remarks. He began by accusing the Government Leader of contradicting himself, and I think if we just review the record from last evening, that the former Minister of Education put clearly on the record his support for Yukon College, and his support for training trust funds. There is no inconsistency.

And I want to also be very clear for the member opposite that I do work with Yukon College; my departmental officials work with Yukon College. It's important that we continue to maintain good relations and to collaborate on the important subject of training for Yukon citizens, and we do that.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Riverdale North stood there and made comments about personal attacks.

Mr. Chair, that member is the master of personal attacks. That member stands here and brings forward unfounded allegations against people at least on a weekly basis in this House. That member has stood here and made vitriolic attacks on citizens who cannot defend themselves. He has attacked First Nations. He has stood here and charged and convicted, in his mind, youth of criminal activity in speaking about residents of group homes in Riverdale. Mr. Chair, that member has no credibility when he comes to speaking about personal attacks. He engages in them on a regular basis in this House.

Now, Mr. Chair, the Member for Riverdale North then went on to speak about injuries and the Vanier gym floor. The member has no credibility. He has cried "wolf" too often. The member has indicated that a majority of the students at the school have been diagnosed with a disease that they'll live with for the rest of their life.

Mr. Chair, Osgood-Schlatter often happens to adolescent males. It is not a permanent disability. With proper care, the condition can be overcome.

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Chair: On a point of order, the hon. Member for Riverdale North.

Mr. Phillips: Point of order, Mr. Chair. If the minister is going to quote another member, she'd better quote the other member accurately. I didn't say "a majority of the students". I said 25 percent of the students. One hundred out of 400 are diagnosed with it, so please quote accurately.

Chair: There is no point of order.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, before I was rudely interrupted by the member with a spurious point of order, I was making the point that this is a common sport injury with boys and with teens and, with proper rehabilitation, it turns out okay.

Now, Mr. Chair, I want to make it clear for the members opposite that we are willing to review any information that specific injuries are attributable to a gym floor.

We are presently researching the issue of the safety of the gym floor. We've contacted the Flooring Standards Association. We're in touch with medical professionals. The Vanier School Council has suggested that we reallocate funds from the cafeteria to the gym floor. We're prepared to consider that. We're not prepared to cut the Education budget.

The Member for Riverdale South then spoke and indicated that she has been in discussion with the school community, who accurately informed her that they felt they were being listened to by the department. We are continuing to work with the school council and administration, Mr. Chair. We are getting the facts and we are prepared to accommodate the school council's interest if we're able to, once we have achieved all of the facts.

Chair: Is there further debate on the proposed amendment? Are you prepared for the question? Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Some Hon. Members: Disagreed.

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Chair: Division has been called.

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Pursuant to section 44(5), the Chair may stop the bells if all members are present. The Chair notices all members are present.

Would those in favour of the amendment please rise.

Chair: Would those opposed please rise.

Chair: The results are six yea, 10 nay. The nays have it.

Chair: Is there further debate on the line item?

Chair: Is there general debate?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: This capital budget contains $1.6 million, and that is for common facilities, $1,400,00 of which is for waterfront development in the City of Whitehorse; $200,000 is allocated for the development of the gymnastics facility at Vanier Catholic Secondary School.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, a consultation process is supposed to be attached to the feasibility study for the construction of the gymnastics facility extension, located at Vanier school.

I wonder if the minister can outline to the House what that public consultation process will be?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I can provide some of the content of the letter that was sent to Mr. Lang, who is the president of the Polarettes Gymnastics Club.

This is from the Minister of Education. It discusses the idea of receiving support for the expansion of the gymnastics facility. It notes that the minister's aware of the extensive use that the facility receives, and it supports the proposal to conduct an engineering feasibility study on the possible expansion of the facility, and it's subject to the following conditions: "The firm conducting the feasibility study must consult with representatives of the Department of Education, and the Vanier Catholic Secondary School Council and administration to ensure that the interests are addressed. Two, the issue of the conflict and usage between the gymnastics facility and the adjacent school gym must be addressed. Three, the expansion of the gymnastics facility must not compromise the possible future expansion of the school."

With reference to the second point, the possible conflict - there have been issues there because the gymnastics facility currently utilizes the washrooms in the gym, and this sometimes brings one group that may be using the gym into conflict with the people using the gymnastics facility.

With respect to public consultation, there isn't anything specifically in this regard. However, in my conversations and messages with Mr. Lang, I have suggested that it would be probably advantageous to all parties to do some consultation, perhaps in a public manner and certainly with some of the impacted groups - the Tennis Association, which, I believe, has some concerns, as well as the residents of Van Gorda, and I understand Bonanza, who also have some concerns. So, while it's not a specific criteria of the feasibility study, I have suggested that it would be, I believe, advantageous. And I understand that Mr. Lang has agreed to do some consultation with some of the related neighbours and some of the impacted user groups.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, this school, of course, is located in my riding, and I'm incredibly aware of the floor plan and the intended floor plan and the area that the school takes up on the lot, as indeed I walk those trails behind it everyday. The concern that I've had raised with me, as the representative from that area, is that there are more than just the residents on Bonanza and Van Gorda who are impacted. Riverdale has got almost 5,000 people there, and this is an community outdoor recreational facility, and those are the tennis courts as well as the trails in that area and the soccer field, which is used by the Soccer Association, which, this year, has over 1,700 people involved in that organization, and my concern is that there is not an open consultation process.

I think that the concern that I've heard expressed from proponents of the facility are that somehow or another they are going to end up in a confrontational situation. Speaking as a former member of Whitehorse City Council, I assured the proponent that if you hold a consultation in the summer, almost nobody comes, but at least you make the effort to consult with the local residents and the users of that group, and there are significantly large numbers of people that use that part of Riverdale for a variety of different reasons.

I know that the minister and I have spoken about this in the past, and I've had extensive conversations with one of the proponents. I wonder if the minister could relay some of those concerns to the proponent about the idea of a public consultation?

They don't usually have to be terribly formal events. Often all you do is put an ad in the paper and you usually use your own facility, and you have your plans up and people just come. They see that there is nothing to be frightened of and that it would actually enhance their community, probably, and those fears are allayed. I wonder if the minister could address some of those concerns?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I can certainly undertake to perhaps write in a more formalized manner. I have communicated to Mr. Lang previously in a written form and by telephone that I thought it probably would be advantageous to do this. I can undertake to do the same in the form of a letter, and maybe even attach some of the proceedings from today just to reiterate that it is, indeed, an issue for the community.

From a Government Services point of view, we've been involved in this project because of our involvement with the Arctic Winter Games. We've had, in a sense, a bit of a list. We received a list last year in August that basically outlined some changes that the Arctic Winter Games were seeking in terms of such things as relamping to accommodate television in gymnasiums, sockets sunk in the floor for things like indoor soccer, and so on and so forth, in some schools. A number of those have been accommodated within the capital budgets of Education, because one has to do light upgrading, so why not upgrade so it meets television standards.

In the case of this particular facility, I was approached by the Arctic Winter Games. They sent a strong letter of endorsement on this project because it had been their experience, having travelled to Yellowknife for the most recent games, that they had some concerns about the suitability of the Vanier gymnastics facility, specifically from issues such as washrooms, such as change rooms, and specifically from the idea of spectator space.

They sent a letter urging that this project would be a major enhancement for the games. Then I subsequently confirmed that with the chair of the games board. I said, "Would you see this as being sort of priority one on things that we should be doing to enhance the games?" I'm sure that all members here want to make those games the most successful Arctic Winter Games possible, and this was, indeed, confirmed. However, I'm also very cognizant of some of the community concerns in this regard.

I think probably, as the member has said, if we were able to encourage the group to do a public presentation, perhaps many of those concerns might be allayed. Perhaps people might get a sense that, while there is some space being taken away, it might not be as bad as what people think. Issues around such matters as parking, entranceways and things of that nature, those concerns may go by the wayside if people have an opportunity to see this in a public forum, and I will certainly convey to the president of the Polarettes these concerns that have been raised today.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, I'm glad to hear that the minister is cognizant of those concerns and that he will be bringing them forward to the proponent of the gymnastics facility.

I just want to reiterate that this, in no way, impedes our support for this particular facility in this endeavour. I think that the Yukon is a world-class destination, and I think that the sports facilities we have here are fabulous, and there's a lot to be proud of, and the improvement on this one will, once again, make it a national venue for gymnastics, and that's something we can all be proud of.

Chair: Seeing no further general debate, we'll proceed to line items.

Chair: Is there general debate?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: This supplemental budget contains an amount in capital expenditures of $125,000. That $125,000 represents a contribution by the Department of Health and Social Services toward a mammography unit at the Whitehorse General Hospital. A second mammography unit was identified as a desirable piece of equipment for the hospital. As the members are aware from our previous budget discussions, there is a line item for capital replacement in the capital budget to replace ongoing equipment at the Whitehorse General Hospital.

This is extraordinary to that. The hospital is also undertaking this mammography unit as a fundraising to raise awareness of the hospital, to try to create a greater public presence. It's being supported by an event - and I'll see if I can get it; I'm just trying to remember which date is Mother's Day and which it isn't. There are actually two events that are associated with this, one being the Hospital Gala, funds of which are to go to the mammography unit. The second one, the Run for the Cure, is going to be the event that is designed to raise money for this unit, which we think is a very worthwhile cause.

I believe that the hospital has some sense that they were interested in going to a somewhat different technology, perhaps a digital type of technology on this machine.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to ask a couple of questions of the minister. The minister noted in his address and discussion of the line-by-line that the Yukon Hospital Corporation's undertaking a number of fundraising events in support of obtaining this second mammography unit. And it's something, of course, that I'm certain not only every member of the Legislature, but members of the public, support as well. The Charity Ball on May 8 and the Run for Mom on Mother's Day, on the 9th - or power walk for Mom - on May 9.

The minister's indicated that the government's contribution will be $125,000. What's the total cost of the mammography unit?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: It's been estimated at $250,000, so we are contributing half of it, and the hospital seems to be confident to be able to raise the rest.

Chair: Is there general debate?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, in this capital supplementary we have some dollars going toward some capital works in campground facilities around the Kluane area, and also some special projects - wildlife viewing interpretation in a couple of different places - and with regard to the fish and wildlife management planning, we have some fisheries enhancement, and that's $85,000. I can go into a little bit more detail if the members would like.

In the campgrounds - just to break down the $50,000 a bit more - it's basically in a couple of different areas. The Lake Creek campground - $15,000 is going to go toward that one. Basically because of the frost action, the main access and loop roads are in need of levelling to reduce the heaves and hollows.

This is going to require some heavy equipment to do some of the repairs, loaders, Cats and graders and so on. And we'll be, of course, a third-party contractor. It will entail up to a week to complete this job. It should employ two people.

In the Congdon Creek, it's the clearing of the bark beetle infested trees and constructing a fire break and removing and burning deadfall and cutting and piling the salvageable firewood on the unoccupied portion of the Congdon Creek. The campground project is expected to take a month, and it will employ up to four local people on a contract basis and, because of the summer fire hazard, work will take place during the August and September months - in late August to September.

At the Kusawa Lake campground, it's the same thing. It's the clearing and thinning of the trees that represent a fire hazard, constructing a fire break around the campground, cutting and piling salvageable wood. The project is expected to be the same as the other - to employ four people on a contract basis, and again it will be in August and early September. Also, it will be in those days to not interfere with the activities of summer camping. And that's $15,000. They are both $15,000.

And the $5,000 on another project is for the completion of the spruce beetle trail on the Alaska Highway, and this is doing some surfacing of the trail, completing the parking lot and installing signage and toilets and a garbage can. And there is going to be some heavy-equipment work also.

It's basically five days of work in the month of May.

Wildlife viewing area - basically, on the Yukon River wildlife viewing site, $30,000 is going toward that. It's $15,000 for the staircase, $10,000 for the platform and $5,000 for signage.

Out of the $56,000 for wildlife viewing, $30,000 is going to that, $10,000 is going to the Swan Haven improvement, which is basically indoor interpretation of First Nations involvement, swan population changes, and the M'Clintock Bay physical and biological processes. Again, the estimated person-weeks of private sector employment is around six weeks.

Sixteen thousand dollars of the $56,000 will be going toward the interpretive display place at the Fox Lake area. This is to do with fires and boreal forests, and it will outline the importance of fire in forest ecosystems and will also provide an opportunity for residents and visitors to view the changes in the forest over time. Since the fire took place last summer, it would of course be good to be able to see these changes over the next many years. Also, this is comparable to the other fires that have happened along the highway north of Whitehorse around Pelly and Dawson.

In regards to - I'll be real brief on this last one - $85,000 for fisheries enhancement, $25,000 going to improvements at the spawn-take hatchery, $10,000 would be going to a feasibility study and $15,000 to incubating equipment.

This is to look at the lake trout, grayling and white fish stocks, which are limited or absent in many Yukon waters because of limited spawning habitats. So, this is a study that will look at all parts of the Yukon and not focus on just one.

The estimated person-weeks on this one is six. There is $60,000 allocated - the members might not like this one - and this would go toward Hidden Lake in Porter Creek and winter water management and recreational fishing development. There is $10,000 going toward an engineering and feasibility study and $50,000 is for doing engineering work.

Now, rainbow trout and Arctic char fish stocks have died over the winter due to the drop in water level. Sometimes it's quite dry and this project basically involves a feasibility study and mitigatory work in cooperation with the city to maintain water flows and sustain the urban and recreational fisheries. And again, this is a big one, I guess, for those who are doing the studies. It's up to 30 person-weeks.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I just have a couple of questions for the minister with respect to these items.

We've had quite lengthy discussions in the House already with respect to campgrounds, and one of the issues we didn't cover during the debate on the budget, which I'd like to cover in the supplementary, is the issue around working with the commercial campgrounds in the Yukon.

Now, I note that the minister has told me before that the largest users of our territorial campgrounds are Yukoners themselves, which is information I think we should highlight for the public. I wonder if I could just urge the minister to have his officials consider a meeting with the commercial campground operators. Issues have been raised with me with respect to the openings and closings, as well as the proximity and expansion of existing campgrounds close to existing commercial enterprises.

If I could just ask the minister if he and his officials would consider doing that perhaps when the season is over.

The detail on the campgrounds, I appreciated. I was curious as to why - the reduction of the spruce beetle-killed trees and the establishment of the fire break - why the minister's officials are waiting until August to do that. My understanding from years ago was essentially that if the Yukon was going to be in the depths of a forest-fire season, it was going to be there by June, so I'm curious as to why we wouldn't get this done very quickly - like early in May - especially when we have so many Yukoners looking for work.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Basically, it's not to interfere with camping season at both these campgrounds. It could be done in May, although this is the timeline that I've been given by the department. I can check to see, you know, if it could not be handled a bit earlier, or taken care of a bit earlier, but it was basically to avoid making the noise and being in the way of campers throughout the summer.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I appreciate the minister's explanation. I would also appreciate it if he would look into May. I mean, in early May or after May 15, Congdon Creek is not going to be that swamped with people, and the far end of Kusawa campground - it's the other one that's used in early May. The ice isn't even off the lakes, and I'm sure the Chair would comment privately to the minister on that. But I would urge them to do that earlier rather than later. In August, the campgrounds are still in use as well.

The other comment I had - the minister talked about, in the wildlife viewing line, that there are monies being allocated for developments at Swan Haven. The Department of Renewable Resources is but one of three partners in Swan Haven, and I would urge the minister to ensure that consultation on that development takes place with the other two partners, in particular with the Girl Guide organization, as they are anticipating 150 Canadians visiting at the facility near Swan Haven in the first two weeks of July, so could we make sure that that six weeks of work is either completed before they arrive or after that visiting group has left. If I could urge the minister in that regard.

The minister has nodded. If I could add one last comment, could I ask the minister to send me the information the department has provided him on the Hidden Lake fisheries enhancement? I'd like to see a bit more of an outline than what he's given us in Hansard. The minister has nodded his head.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Chair, I don't have anything further to add. I would appreciate a copy of the information the minister sends to the Liberal critic.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Yes, I can provide additional information that the Liberals are asking for to the Yukon Party.

Chair: Seeing no further general debate, we will proceed to capital expenditures.

Chair: Is there general debate?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Certainly, Mr. Chair, in the supplementary budget, we've increased it by $990,000. We're looking to put $190,000 into the Beaver Creek Visitor Reception Centre to replace it. It'll be coupled with the $85,000 that is in the mains, for a total of $275,000.

We're also going to embark on a new marketing tool that we have for the international tourism marketplace. It's going to be a four-season video that we're going to work with and incorporate all the skills that we have here in the Yukon Territory to continue marketing our beautiful territory. We've put aside $200,000 for that.

We've also allocated $400,000 to the renovations of the Oddfellows Hall in Dawson City to continue with the enhancement of heritage facilities, and we've added an additional $200,000 to the millennium celebration fund program that will, of course, provide much opportunity for communities and people throughout the Yukon Territory to come and enjoy the millennium celebrations.

Mr. Phillips: I've just got a couple of questions. First of all, I think I've seen the plans for the Beaver Creek facility as they've been around for a bit. If the member could refresh my memory, is it a log building that we're building in Beaver Creek for $275,000? It seems like a pretty expensive log building. It must cover exhibits and cover other things in the building as well, I would hope, for that amount of money. Perhaps the minister could clarify that.

The other clarification - the minister said they are going to do a four-season video of the Yukon and I just want to make sure I get assurances from the minister that, unlike this last year's visitor guide, they'll all be Yukon pictures. Are we going to try and make sure that it's all Yukon pictures this time in the video, so we're not promoting Alaska or some other jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: The member is correct on both.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I'd just like a point of clarification with respect to the development of the Beaver Creek Visitor Reception Centre. I had an opportunity to be in that visitor reception centre last summer and it's like the buildings in Dawson used to be. It's quite the wavy, up-and-down trip as you walk through the centre, and I'm just wondering, is it the plan to use that centre for the summer and, if that's the case, has the minister been reassured of any safety concerns? And is the plan then to develop the log building after September 15 when the visitor reception centre is normally closed or is the plan to be building one while we're using the other? What's the time frame on that?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly it won't be ready in time for this visitor season, but certainly we're going to do very, very minor repairs to the Beaver Creek Visitor Reception Centre just to keep it so that it will be commodious for the visitors this season.

Certainly, as to the exact location of the new visitor reception centre, I believe it'll be just slightly behind, but that is something that I'll have to check with the department to find out. Yes, it is going to be ready for next season.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the minister spoke about a four-season video. Is this a four-season version of As the Crow Flies and is similar usage intended? Is my understanding correct?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Well, it's pretty close, Mr. Chair. The idea came from Europe and the operators who are around the Yukon Territory that this is what we need. We are going to be putting together a steering committee comprised of the different interest groups or stakeholders so that we can focus it on a good bang-up sales tool for the Yukon Territory. So, it'll be left up to the creativity of the people that we have and we have some very wonderfully creative people in the Yukon.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, there is no question that we have some creative people in the Yukon. I'd also just like to make one small recommendation to the minister with regard to that development of the film. The people who were involved in making As the Crow Flies, - there isn't anyone who has seen that who wasn't incredibly touched by it - and I'm thinking in particular of the helicopter pilot, the guy on the ground and in the air.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan: He was in both for the Minister of Health and Social Services, who obviously hasn't seen the film. He was not only piloting the helicopter, he was also a model in the film. People like that who know the Yukon, as well as the creative types and the representative of organizations - let's involve people like that and ask them for their opinion on this as well. Could I make that recommendation to the minister?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Well, there will certainly be every opportunity for that helicopter pilot, whether he's in the air or on the ground for his input, because certainly we do have the people here in the Yukon. We're going to be doing a call for them.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 18, Second Appropriation Act, 1999-2000, out of Committee without amendment.

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, we were requesting $4,056,000 in spending authority for the 1998-99 fiscal year in the supplementary. These additional sums are more than offset by an increase in our income of some $10,100,000.

The net result is a decrease in the deficit for the year from $7.2 million to $1.1 million. On the income side of the equation our territorial own-source revenue has declined by $5.9 million. This has made up a reduced income tax revenue of over $6.5 million, offset to some degree by an increase in oil and gas royalties of $652,000.

The decline in income tax yields is based on figures supplied us by the federal government, who collect these taxes on our behalf and must be viewed as a preliminary figure, since this estimate will contain some elements of national data trend.

Oil and gas royalties are up as a result of increased production at our Kotaneelee gas wells, as a result of an upgrading program recently completed by the fields operator.

The formula financing grant is shown as having increased some $16 million. A major portion of this increase is due to decline in income tax revenues, and the consequent increase in the grant as a result of the failsafe provisions of the formula.

The remainder of the increase is due to the variety of factors that go into the calculation of the formula grant. During my second reading remarks I spoke to the fact that the data from StatsCan, updated to March of this year, tells us the formula grant will increase further, approximately $9 million.

This is due in large part to favourable changes in the provincial local escalator used to calculate the formula's gross expenditure base and similarly favourable revisions of provincial tax rates, used in the calculations of the perversity factor under formula.

Some portion of these changes is probably due to the recent revision of the system of national accounts carried out by StatsCan. The additional monies gained as a result of these matters is budgeted for expenditure in 1999-2000, as a subject for the supplementary for that year that has just been passed through Committee.

Mr. Chair, the increased appropriations we're asking for in the current supplementary are comprised of relatively few items. Since our oil and gas royalties have increased, we require an additional O&M appropriation of $326,000 in the Department of Economic Development for that portion that is shared with First Nations.

Justice requires operations and maintenance monies for increased judicial salaries, a result of the findings of the Judicial Compensation Commission. Since the ombudsman's salary is tied to that of the Chief Judge of the Territorial Court, an adjustment is also required to the vote for his office.

The capital funds being requested in the supplementary are all in the Department of Community and Transportation Services and are for an acceleration of the contributions we have promised for the Whitehorse and Watson Lake recreation facilities. Whitehorse will be receiving an additional $1 million this year. This is over and above the $1 million previously voted in the main estimates. Watson Lake will receive $2.5 million as a result of the supplementary.

It is our hope that the acceleration of the granting of these funds will permit the projects to proceed in the current year and thereby provide much-needed immediate employment for Yukoners, as well as permitting the use of the facilities sooner than would otherwise have been the case.

On the basis of this supplementary, our projected accumulated surplus at year-end will be approximately $49.4 million. As I mentioned, however, in my remarks at second reading, this should increase somewhat as a result of the capital lapses, the magnitude of which won't be known for certain until the public accounts for the year are completed.

Over the next several years, this surplus will decline as the full impact of the Faro mine closure works its way through the formula financing calculations.

I look forward to any questions the members may have.

Chair: Is there general debate?

Chair: Is there general debate?

Chair: Is there general debate?

Chair: Is there general debate?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I move that Bill No. 15, entitled Fourth Appropriation Act, 1998-99, be moved out of Committee without amendment.

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: This important bill will, for the first time, see our taxes being used to provide significant incentives for economic development in the Yukon. At the same time, and once again for the first time, it will provide significant tax relief to those of our citizens who manage on lower incomes and those in such circumstances with children.

Finally, the bill will embody in legislation our commitment to share with First Nations the personal income taxes of residents on settlement land.

I'll speak briefly to each of the five initiatives being proposed here in a conceptual manner and I'll leave the detail to general and clause-by-clause debate.

The Yukon low-income family tax credit, or LIFT credit, as we call it, is designed to help taxpayers whose net income is less than $25,000 per year. The maximum credit available is $300 and the credit is gradually reduced as an individual's income rises above the $15,000 level, such that a person with a net income of $25,000 or more receives no credit.

The reduction from the $300 maximum sum is achieved by reducing from that sum three percent of net income in excess of $15,000. As an example, an individual with a net income of $20,000 per year will receive a credit of $150 - that is $300 less three percent of the $5,000 excess of income over $15,000.

This measure is a true tax credit and is therefore non-refundable. In other words, no individual can receive a benefit unless they have a tax liability to offset the benefit against.

Further, the credit is designed such that no one is removed from the tax rules. This is achieved by a floor provision that ensures that an individual's Yukon income tax is not reduced by more than 80 percent. Only one spouse in the family may claim this credit and that member must be the spouse with a higher net income.

We estimate that the LIFT credit will benefit roughly 3,000 individuals or families and will result in approximately $500,000 in foregone personal tax revenue per year. This measure is effective January 1, 1999, and as a result, people will realize its full benefit when they complete their 1999 income tax returns next year.

This credit will be of significant benefit to those who claim it and will hopefully provide that extra sum of disposable income that can make a difference.

The second initiative that we're proposing is a Yukon child benefit, a credit that will involve a direct cash payment to families with children under 18 years of age.

This measure will be administered for us by the federal government through the income tax system and is a Yukon-funded extension of the Canada child tax benefit. Anyone receiving the Canada child tax benefit will automatically qualify for the Yukon benefit. The credit available varies with the number of children in the family, being approximately $300 per year for the first child, $200 for the second child, and $150 for subsequent children. The maximum benefit is available to families with net incomes up to $15,000 per year. Partial benefits will be available to families with net incomes between $15,000 and $22,000, at which point availability of the benefit ceases. Therefore, a family with a net income of $15,000 and three children under 18 will receive at least $650 per year in benefits under this program.

So as not to nullify the impact of this assistance, the benefits received will be non-taxable and not be considered as income for purposes of determining social assistance eligibility. The effective date for implementation is July 1 of this year, and payments will begin flowing in October, with that payment also including benefits due for the July to September period. We are predicting that 1,150 families with 2,000 children will benefit from the Yukon child benefit at a cost to our treasury of some $500,000 per year.

The monies this program provides will go some distance in alleviating the problems lower income families face in trying to provide their children with the amenities most of us take for granted and as a matter of course.

To address the economic aspect of our affairs, we are introducing two new tax measures that will provide significant incentives for business investment in the Yukon. The first is the Yukon mineral exploration tax credit, a tax credit that will be in effect two years, beginning April 1 of the current year. It consists of a refundable corporate and personal income tax credit of 22 percent of eligible mineral exploration expenditures.

In other words, if an individual or a corporation spends $100,000 on an exploration program, they will receive a credit of $22,000, effectively reducing their cost to $78,000.

The exploration being undertaken must be apart from existing mine sites, and includes expenses incurred in the course of prospecting, geological, geographical, and geochemical surveys; drilling, trenching and digging testpits. As I mentioned earlier, this credit is refundable. Any credit earned is first applied against any tax payable. If the credit exceeds tax payable, refunds will be made by cheque upon assessment of the claimants' income tax return.

Because this measure is an income tax refund, the normal Income Tax Act rules of residency apply to those wishing to take advantage of the credit. This means that individuals will have had to be resident in the Yukon on December 31 of the year for which a credit is being claimed.

In the case of corporations, they must have maintained a permanent establishment, as defined in the Income Tax Act, in the Yukon at some time during the year. The mineral exploration tax credit is expected to result in a tax expenditure of $2.5 million in each year of its two-year lifespan.

We anticipate that the credit will result in obvious benefits for the employment of individual Yukoners and businesses.

As an added bonus, this initiative will augment the inventory of mineral resources in the territory, which will bode well for the future.

This credit is indicative of our support for responsible mining activity, and it has already been extremely well-received by the industry, if comments at the Cordilleran Round-up and meetings subsequent to that event that I've attended can be believed.

The second economic tax measure we are proposing is a Yukon small business investment tax credit. This is a non-refundable credit, and hence can only be used to offset taxes owing. No cheque will be issued if that taxpayer does not have a tax liability. The credit can, however, if unused in one year, be carried forward seven years and back three years, but not, of course, to years prior to the 1999 tax year.

This measure is available only to individual taxpayers, not corporations. The credit is available at a rate of 25 percent of the value of the eligible investment, up to a maximum of $25,000 each year. This means that it will require a $100,000 investment by an investor to achieve the maximum annual credit available. There is also a limitation on the maximum amount of eligible investments a corporation may receive in any one year. This maximum was set at $800,000, which means that no single corporation can consume more than 25 percent of that sum, that is, $200,000 in credits in a year.

Investments permitted under this program are not limited to common shares. They also include subordinated debt but, if debt is purchased, an investor must also have at least an equal amount of equity.

As a tax credit, only Yukon taxpayers, that is, individuals resident in the Yukon at the end of the tax year, are entitled to benefit from the program. The corporations that can be invested in can be private or cooperative and must maintain permanent establishments in the Yukon and carry on active business here. In addition, 50 percent of the corporation's tangible property must be located in the Yukon and at least 50 percent of the corporation's wages and salaries must be paid to employees for work done in the Yukon.

Investments made by taxpayers can be RRSP eligible when this is permitted under the federal RRSP rules.

This program will be ongoing, coming into effect on July 1 of the current year. We have capped the value of credits available at $1 million per year. This cap for the small business investment tax credit will be implemented through the use of a pre-approval process to be administered by the Department of Economic Development.

This important initiative will encourage investment in Yukon businesses by Yukon taxpayers and will therefore meet two fundamental inadequacies noted many times in the past by numerous commentators in the territory. Firstly, it will make capital available to local businesses, the lack of which we have all heard about many times.

Secondly, it will provide an investment outlet in Yukon for Yukon investors. A theme constantly heard on the pre-budget consultation tours was a need for some sort of an investment vehicle that would permit Yukoners to invest in the Yukon. This proposal is designed to begin to meet that need. I have no doubt that it will be well-received throughout the territory.

Mr. Chair, there is a fifth element to this legislation. Section 14.1 of the Yukon First Nation self-government agreements envision the governments of Canada and Yukon entering into tax-sharing agreements with First Nations. This has been done with seven of Yukon's First Nations, the first to settle, and the provisions contained in this bill will implement those arrangements for the Yukon government.

The Yukon will be sharing 95 percent of the personal income tax revenue that it would have otherwise raised from individuals resident on settlement land. The sharing will be done via a non-refundable Yukon tax credit for that portion of the Yukon tax payable by the individual. Our agreements with First Nations require them to levy a tax of similar magnitude to the tax credit being provided by Yukon. Therefore, no individual resident on settlement land will pay more or less income tax than they would with no tax-sharing arrangement in place. Under formula financing, the revenues so lost to the Yukon government will be treated as a volume decrease and, therefore, fail-safed, such as there is no loss to the Yukon government, the formula grant increasing by a similar sum.

The federal government will also be sharing its personal income tax revenues with First Nations. The ability to levy personal income taxes is an important aspect of self-government for First Nations. Were we not to provide a credit for the Yukon tax, First Nations would not, in practical terms, be able to levy any significant tax of their own, since a second such tax would place too great a tax burden on those individuals resident on settlement land.

We are extremely pleased to be able to cooperate with First Nations in this manner.

Measures such as these assist in making self-government a practical reality for First Nations, a reality I'm certain all members of the Legislature will gladly help promote.

Mr. Chair, several of the initiatives being implemented with this bill were the result of suggestions flowing from the tax round-table exercise begun last fall. I wish to thank those who took part in the round-table exercises and look forward to working with them in the future as the round-table process continues.

They will continue, Mr. Chair, because for us, tax reform is not a one-shot matter; rather, it will be an ongoing feature of our government.

I should mention that one other suggestion arising from our round-table discussions, a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation, was also accepted by us and we expect legislation to establish such an investment vehicle to come forward at the fall sitting.

The significance of the measures being proposed here today should not be minimized. This will help bring our tax regime into line with the rest of the country and the world, for that matter. It will make the Yukon a more attractive place for Yukoners and non-Yukoners to invest in and will help those in our society who need help the most: low-income families and individuals both with and without children.

I know that these are objectives that members present will subscribe to, and I look forward to their support in achieving these objectives.

Thank you.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, we've had time to digest a lot of this over the last 35 days. Even though we haven't seen the bill in its entirety until a while ago, we have had a briefing on it. I do have a few questions I'd like to get out of the road in general debate and then, when we get to clause-by-clause, there'll be more technical information that I'll require.

I think I'll just go through these one at a time. So, my questions are going to start in the area of the mineral tax credit and the Finance minister's comment that this credit would apply to exploration that was, I believe he said, off the mine site. Is the minister saying that an established mining company in the territory that has an active mine - let me phrase it this way, Mr. Chair: would a company that has an active mine in the territory be eligible for a tax credit to expand the reserves of that mine?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I'll get a precise answer, Mr. Chair, but first of all the rules that we are applying are similar to the federal rules for the benefits that they provide for exploration projects. So, the precise definition of what constitutes an on-mine-site normal exploration activity and what constitutes an off-mine-site exploration activity follows essentially the rules that the federal government has already established for their benefit.

I'll have to get the member a precise definition because I don't have it here with me.

Mr. Ostashek: That's fine. The reason I'm asking is because I don't know what the federal legislation says. I want to know so that if somebody asks me I can answer the question as to whether it does or not.

Another question I have on the mineral tax credit: it says a resident applying for it needs to reside in the Yukon on December 31 of the year of the application. Corporations need to be able to provide evidence of residency as laid out by Revenue Canada.

My question is, will these corporations be applying to Revenue Canada for a ruling before they do the exploration work or does Revenue Canada give this ruling only after the fact?

My concern here is that we can get into a situation where a company could come in and do $2-million worth of exploration believing they're going to get a 22 percent tax credit, and be refused by Revenue Canada. Then they wouldn't be eligible for the tax credit.

What discussions have gone on around that issue?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: In answer to this question, mining companies that are in doubt as to what constitutes an eligible expense can get a ruling from Revenue Canada in advance if they wish. I would suspect that a lot of the activity will be fairly routine and will be supported.

I would draw the member's attention - though I will provide a more detailed response - to page 23, section 4. This is rather a dense piece of legislation - paragraph (c). The clause reads, "An expense incurred by the taxpayer that may reasonably be considered to be related to a mine that has come into production in reasonable commercial quantities or to be related to a potential or actual extension thereof." These are expenses that are considered ineligible.

Mr. Ostashek: Okay, so the minister's saying if I have permission - in layman's language, that an active mine in the territory that was doing exploration work and expanding reserves would not be eligible for the tax credit.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes. Normally a mine will - for example, mines I've worked in will start there. They have an ore body. They know the ore body exists, and they regularly expand that ore body through regular drilling that happens virtually every day.

Because of a new expansion mill, they'll drive drifts, or do long holes, or service drilling, into the immediately contiguous ore body. These would be considered on site, and consequently not covered. These are part of the costs of normally doing business. This is to spur on new exploration activity, and that's what we're seeking to do here, similar to the federal rules.

Mr. Ostashek: My question on the other one - on the corporation getting a ruling from Revenue Canada was not on eligible expenses, it was on the residency requirements that are stipulated in there, and responding to what the minister said in his opening comments. The minister said something to the effect that corporations would have to establish residence as laid out by Revenue Canada. I want to know if that's going to be done before the fact or after the fact, or if a corporation's going to come in here, do several million dollars' worth of exploration, expecting to get the 22-percent tax credit, and then find out that Revenue Canada says, "No, you're not a resident of the territory."

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, if these corporations are in doubt as to whether or not the actions they take to establish a permanent residence under the terms of the Income Tax Act make them in fact eligible for the credit, then they should ask Revenue Canada for an interpretation of their own circumstances.

Mr. Ostashek: Okay. But my understanding was that a resident corporation would have to file their income taxes in the Yukon in order to be classified as a resident. Or is there some other stipulation that Revenue Canada makes? I'm a resident of the Yukon. I file my taxes in the Yukon. If I'm a resident in Ontario, I'd have to establish a residency there before I'd be eligible to file my taxes there. That's the question I'm asking - how do we differentiate?

I know that the Minister of Economic Development stood up and said, well, it was very easy to establish residence for these companies if they so chose. I don't believe it's that easy. That's why I'm trying to get some clarification on it, as to what is going to be considered a Yukon company to be eligible for the tax credit, and what is not. Because most of the companies, as the Finance minister knows, that explore in the Yukon are not resident companies. They are residents of other jurisdictions, even some other places in the world, not even in Canada.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The language in the act, Mr. Chair, is that a permanent establishment is defined in the federal income tax regulations as meaning a fixed place of business including an office, mine, factory, workshop, warehouse. Where a corporation does not have a fixed place of business, it means the principal place in which the corporation's business is conducted. That's the definition in the act.

Now, the opportunity, of course, exists for a company who wants to do business in the Yukon and who do not meet the requirements under the act but want to seek out the credit, to joint venture with a local company who can do the work and who can claim the credit. So, this does not prevent companies altogether from indirectly benefiting from the credit if they sponsor work in the Yukon.

Mr. Ostashek: No, I understand that. I don't want the Finance minister to get me wrong. I don't want to make it any easier for these outside corporations. I just listened to the hype that was put forward by the Minister of Economic Development about how this was going to help the exploration in Yukon, when many of the companies that explore here are international companies. I'm just wondering what impact the tax credit is going to have on overall exploration.

Maybe the Finance minister - maybe we can approach from that way. The Finance minister said this was announced at the Cordilleran Roundup in January. We're getting on to the exploration season. Has there been any activity or has there been a marked increase in activity that can be attributed to the 22-percent tax credit?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I think it's a little early to say. There's been a marked increase in interest in the tax credit. Whether this results in a substantial increase in activity, I don't know, but there's certainly been a lot of interest in the tax credit. There's no doubt about that.

A number of companies - as the member points out, international companies - who would like to do business, who would like to see in some way, indirectly, the benefit of the tax credit flow through to work that they sponsor, have been inquiring as to the availability of this credit and when it's going to be passed.

Mr. Ostashek: Okay, we won't prolong the debate on that now. We'll have to give it some time, and we have plenty of time to discuss it in next spring's budget, to see what impact it's had on exploration in the territory.

I want to turn to the other area in the tax bill, and the only area that's given me some concern that I need more clarification on, and that's to the First Nation income tax credit. And I would prefer to do it now in general debate, rather than wait till we get to line by line, so that we have a free flow of information on it.

I'm concerned about the potential abuses that this clause could trigger, and let me lay out for the Finance minister what my concern is. I had a technical briefing from Finance officials which I appreciate, and thank the minister for. It was very helpful. But I did raise some questions there that I believe were of a political nature, and was told by the people in the department that I would have to ask the Finance minister, so that's what I'd like to do here this afternoon.

We are giving up up to 95 percent of our tax room to First Nations. We are going to be reimbursed that through the failsafe agreement to the formula. So we're not going to be out any money.

That's not my concern.

It also stipulates in the tax act and in the minister's statement here that First Nations have to use the tax room that we give up, that they can't choose not to. But what assurances do we have, or what guarantees do we have, that there wouldn't be a rebate given in some other form to First Nations residents?

Now, the reason I ask this is that there was - as the Finance minister himself knows, being part of government that was involved in the negotiations of the land claims for a long time - tremendous effort made to have a level playing field when it came to taxation after land claims were completed, and that's why we had the buyout of some $25 million to First Nations.

So, I just want to know from the Finance minister if any thought has been given to this and what safeguards are in place to stop the First Nations from returning this money to the people in some other form?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I've anticipated that question, Mr. Chair. In fact, I was thinking about this while we were going through the process of developing a mandate and negotiating the tax-sharing agreement with First Nations.

First of all, I guess the answer to the question is that nothing can prevent a First Nation from rebating to members once the tax is given to the First Nation government or from finding a way to try to rebate some or all of those funds to its residents. It's the same way that we can. If we wanted to increase the homeowner grant and just not put it back into expenditures, but basically give it back to individuals, we could do that, too.

I think though that that's going to be an unlikely scenario, frankly. We obviously have the opportunity to review it after 10 years, but I think it's an unlikely scenario, given a couple of factors. Firstly, First Nation governments have been making quite a credible case for a long time that the implementation funding that they got to meet their community's expectations is woefully inadequate, and they have been trying to make up for the fact that they felt that they did not get reasonable funding in implementation through discussions around program service transfer agreements and transfers of federal programs to the Yukon. They've been looking at getting loan funding that was provided to them for negotiations and getting that refunded. There are all kinds of ways to try to meet the expectations of the residents, because they have a lot of powers, as the member knows, to undertake things, but they don't have much by way of resources to actually carry out programs.

So, I would suspect that they will be in a position like other governments and, in fact, much more so, but they'll be looking to doing things with the funding that they get, rather than looking to simply provide it back in some sort of rebate form.

The second reason is that what we're talking about here in practical dollar terms now is estimated to be $1 million for the entire territory. This is how much revenue we're talking about sharing - the Yukon government sharing with First Nations - that we would otherwise receive if we were to accept the tax on those First Nation residents on settlement land.

This is spread out among 14 First Nations around the territory, so we're not talking about a substantial amount of money, in any case, when it comes to the expectations of the 14 different governments.

So, the short answer to the member's question is, indeed, if the government wishes to undertake a program and provide services to its people or whether it wants to provide a benefit to its people through what might be referred to as a rebate or a direct grant to individuals, they can do either one of those things. The reality for them, however, is that they are screaming for resources, they are having relatively little success with the federal government, and I think the priority for the next many, many years will be to glean what income they can both through tax revenue and also through royalties, whatever resource developments they have, or business taxes for whatever businesses they have undertaken, to try to meet in some small measure the expectations of their communities.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, I agree with the Finance minister to a certain extent but I guess what I'm looking for here is - I'm not concerned about the $1 million. The money, right now, is the least of my concerns. It's the equity between our different citizens in the territory and the perception of equalness. We know First Nations find it very unpalatable to assess a property tax. They've stated that quite clearly. They don't like doing it, so they're going to have to raise some money in other manners.

The Finance minister said there's nothing to stop them from rebating this any more than there is for the territorial government. I'd just point out to the Finance minister that the territorial government rebates this to all of our citizens. If the First Nations were to rebate it, it would be just to their citizens.

What I don't want to see - and that's why I'm asking the question so that I can be very clear - is that we don't want to be creating inequalities or the perception of inequalities here.

Another area of concern to me is that while we're being given this money back by the federal government and we're giving up our tax room to the First Nation to use that money to provide services to their people - well, basically, I suppose, on their land - we are still providing services for all of our population. The 25 or 30 percent of the First Nations is still going to be driving on Yukon highways; they're going to be using other services of the territory, and are they not going to be contributing to that in any manner? How is the funding arrangement made on that?

If we're giving up our taxation room - that's where our money goes, to pay for services that we provide to all citizens in the territory - we're going to get the money from the federal government, but it's the perception of equality again, is what I'm talking about. We're going to have 25 percent of the population that is not going to be contributing directly to the services being provided by the territorial government on behalf of all citizens of the Yukon.

So I just want to know from the Finance minister if he can enlighten me on the discussions that surrounded that area.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, I guess a couple of things. First of all, with respect to property tax, that's a separate negotiation, and it's ongoing. With respect to the taxation, it is possible that the First Nation may want to provide some housing allowance or some grants or some sort of rebate or some sort of whatever it is to its citizens that are not available to the general taxpayer; neither are they available to citizens in the First Nation next door.

So there is the potential, obviously, for different priorities in different communities to make for different regimes. That's anticipated in the land claims agreement - communities make their own decisions.

In the first instance, the tax must be drawn from people's income. I mean this is clear. Everybody out there who is working, wherever they are, must have tax money, in the first instance, drawn from their pocket. So, as individuals, no matter what their collective community may decide later - whether they be in a municipality, a First Nation, a territorial government - they as individuals still have to fork out a share of their income, depending on how much income they make, to the collective good.

Now obviously, as I say, there could be different regimes. There are different regimes between municipalities, too. Some municipalities have a higher tax base than others.

When it comes to providing services, as the member knows from the land claims negotiations, the language is fairly clear as to how services are funded and who could provide the services. The language is pretty clear on this point. It's just that, in practice, it's not proving to be as easy to deliver.

When it comes to providing services, the formula for determining how those services will be funded is found in the First Nation final agreements, and the formula for determining who is to pay and how they're to pay is, in my view, very clearly laid out. The difficulty is that we haven't been in a position to achieve much success through the PSTA process since 1993, and there is not a lot of potential success in sight because there is a lot of resistance on the federal side to providing the funds as dictated by the final agreements.

The amount of resources that we're talking about here is very limited and would go to providing general government operations - things that are basically not funded now. As much as people, particularly in the federal government, want to believe that the implementation funding is sufficient to get the First Nations up and running, it is just not happening. The money is not there.

This area of income tax is to provide some ability for the First Nation, albeit very minor because, in practical terms, we're probably talking about certainly less than $100,000 for any individual First Nation to support general government operations. For the time being and until PSTAs dictate otherwise in the fullness of time, programs and services will continue to be delivered by the Yukon government for all citizens of the territory, including First Nations. There will obviously be some services that the Yukon government will provide forever, particularly with respect to highway maintenance and all kinds of things. But as far as the funding of general government operations, this is what this income tax revenue is anticipated to support.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Chair, pursuant to an agreement with House leaders, I move

THAT Committee of the Whole and the Assembly be empowered to sit beyond 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of completing consideration of the bills now in Committee of the Whole; for the House to consider third reading of Bill No. 14, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1999-2000, and all of the bills reported from Committee of the Whole today; and for receiving the Commissioner to grant assent to the bills that are passed today.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, we're winding down this session, and I'm not going to prolong this debate on this issue. I just want to get my thoughts on the record. The only thing I have to add to that is that the Finance minister has said that some of this is to offset implementation money. Well, $1 million isn't going to go very far to offset the implementation money, which is going to be running out for some of the bands in a few years, and then they're going to have a real dilemma that they have to face. And I don't want the Finance minister for one minute to think that I'm begrudging this money to the First Nations. That's not the issue here at all. This is about retaining some semblance of equality between all citizens in the Yukon, because if we don't do that, we haven't done our job.

It's going to be more and more difficult to implement the land claims we're faced with doing over the next 20, 30 or 40 years, or whatever it's going to take to implement them. So, I'm just trying to satisfy my mind, so I can satisfy my constituents that there is equality here and there's nothing to worry about. So, with that, I'll let my colleague get in on the debate here. I'm sure he had some questions.

Mr. Cable: From what the Finance minister said today, and from the handouts that accompanied the bill when it was tabled in the House, I gather the cost to the tax system of the two commercial tax credits is $1 million for the small business investment tax credit - it's kept at $1 million - and $2.5 million for the mineral exploration tax credit.

In the handout we have, it's not firmly indicated that the $2.5 million for the mineral exploration tax credit is a cap. Could the minister clarify that?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It's not a cap. There is no cap for the mineral exploration tax credit, but it is a best guess as to what will likely happen.

Mr. Cable: The best guess then for the two commercial tax credits is $3.5 million.

I noticed, in relation to the Yukon low income family tax credit and the Yukon child benefit, there is an estimation of the people who would be affected, and I think the minister got into that briefly with the leader of the official opposition. What's the minister's best guess for the number of people who will take up the mineral exploration tax credit and the Yukon small business investment tax credit?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, that's very difficult to say, Mr. Chair. First of all, with respect to the small business tax credit, we know the maximum amount available for any given business, in any given year, is $200,000. We know what the maximum is for any individual who wants to seek assistance - that's $25,000 in any given year.

The Northwest Territories just started a small business tax credit that is similar - not as good as this one, but similar - but we don't have much experience with that yet. That was announced last fall, but we know what the limits are, so we can say what the minimum number could be, but I don't know what the maximum number would be.

I suspect that it'll be very well-used. All I can say, with respect to the mineral exploration tax credit, is that the best guess from the mine facilitator in Economic Development is that it will be used, and this is the level of activity we can expect, given current world circumstances.

So, whatever we provide would be a ballpark guess off the top of somebody's head.

Mr. Cable: I'm having some trouble translating the objectives that the two commercial tax credits have into the act. When we get to them, hopefully the minister, with his assistant, will be able to walk me through the act, but it doesn't appear immediately apparent that the objectives that are set out - the promotion of economic growth and job creation and economic diversification - are translated directly into the act. That's what's quoted for the Yukon small business investment tax credit, and essentially the same sort of thing for the mineral exploration tax credit.

There's talk about how the securities are to be regulated and decided upon, but there's nothing in the act that says the plan, in the case of the small business investment tax credit, has to have certain terms of reference.

Now, it may be that I've missed that. When we get to those sections, I'd like to walk through the sections with the minister to see how those goals and objectives are actually translated into the language.

Is it more convenient for the minister to do that now, or when in fact we get to those subclauses?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, maybe the member can help me a little bit because I'm not certain I understand the member's question.

The Income Tax Act, of course, is a fairly dense, compact, esoteric piece of legislation and, of course, it deals with the mechanics of how these taxation measures will be implemented.

Can the member give me perhaps a fuller explanation of what he is trying to achieve, because I'm not quite certain I understand?

The small business tax credit says that businesses in the Yukon that wish to get more investment for the purposes of expansion can seek investors who will get a maximum of a $25,000 credit on a $100,000 investment. This is any business that is expanding.

With respect to the mineral exploration tax credit, this is for exploration activity in the Yukon - legitimate exploration activity to seek out new ore bodies that may have sufficient mineral potential to turn into a mine at some point down the road.

Can the member perhaps explain a little further what he means by the question?

Mr. Cable: Certainly. Let's take the small business investment tax credit - and the minister may have actually answered the question; he said any business that is expanding. But with respect to the small business investment tax credit, there's a definition of qualified investment, which is really just a description of the security, and then there's a description of the business plan, and it talks about qualified investments.

But it doesn't specifically say that, to qualify, you have to meet the terms of reference that are set out in the handouts that the minister handed to us with the bill, and that's promote economic growth, or job creation, or economic diversification. That hasn't been translated into the act, unless I've missed it.

And what I'm wondering is, when some public servant looks at this business plan, what are they going to be looking for? Are they going to be looking for how many jobs are created, or what sort of economic diversification we're going to have, or what sort of economic growth we're going to have? Or are they just going to be looking at the securities in the terms of reference for the securities that are set in the act?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: A lot of thought was put into whether or not we should have a public servant determine whether or not a particular business was qualified, based on what the business does for a living.

I think there was a concern that someone is not in a position to say, "Well, we've got enough window and door manufacturers, we don't need any more of those, let's reserve it for something else" - or making a judgment call on the value of one particular business over another.

This would be tremendously problematic. The desire was instead to be substantially more objective than that and have more of an objective system. It does mean, of course, that some businesses may have a greater impact on the economy than others, but to have the public servant decide which ones should get it and which ones don't, would, in my view, be troublesome and I would prefer to have the more objective process and then review our experience over time to see how it's doing and who and what kind of businesses and what impact the expansion of these businesses is having on the territory .

Mr. Cable: I think I would agree with that approach but the act does require, at least with respect to the small business investment tax credit, the application for a certificate, and then you have to file a business plan. What's the reason for filing the business plan if everybody is going to get the tax credit without comparison as to whether they're going to meet the objectives?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The purpose of filing a business plan is to demonstrate that the credit being applied for is to promote active businesses, not passive investments. Active businesses are defined in the federal Income Tax Act and include almost any business except a business set up to earn investment income, such as dividends, interest or royalties where the investment business has less than six employees. So, the idea is basically to ensure that you've got an active business in place, it's not simply an investment vehicle, and that there is, in layperson's terms, some economic activity - people are employed and something's happening.

Mr. Cable: Right, okay. I think I understand where the minister's coming from and I think the low-red-tape approach is probably the best one.

Let me ask this. The Minister of Economic Development provided a legislative return April 23, 1999, and there is an attachment, entitled "Mining Taxation Options". One of the options looked at was "introduce a refundable Yukon mineral exploration tax credit for a three-year period". Is that what we're doing here, or is this mineral tax credit going to go on until revoked? Is there a time period that's set for it?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The decision made to date is to have a time period of two years for the mineral exploration tax credit. Our intent at this point is for a two-year period starting April 1 of this year and ending two years later. We have not made any decision to go beyond that at this point.

Mr. Cable: I indicated to the minister earlier that I had some interest in determining how the minister would be evaluating these programs and, of course, that would be relevant to the mineral exploration tax credit if it's going to come to a halt two years from now. What are the minister's intentions as to how he is going to determine whether to continue the mineral exploration tax credit or not? What is he going to use as criteria for evaluation?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, if I told the member that I'd flip a coin, he might believe me. However, the reality will be probably fairly subjective in a sense, in that we will be determining through our discussions with the mining industry what kind of effect the tax credit has had on their decision making. Certainly if mining exploration activity naturally rebounds, then that will signal that there is no longer a need for any kind of incentive, but the decision will have to be made based on whatever evaluation we undertake, which will involve, of course, discussions with the mining industry and some sense from the program administrators as to whether or not they believe this acted as a trigger in boardrooms to increase activity, or to make activity happen when it may not otherwise have happened, and we'll basically have to make that call.

It is difficult, of course, to have absolutely firm performance indicators when we're undertaking an expenditure of this sort, if the ultimate performance sought is the number of mines being created, the number of jobs being created as a result of an operating mine.

This tax credit could easily be - as in Manitoba's case - a granting program, or it could be much like our granting program - the prospectors assistance program would provide $10,000 per year to prospectors to go off into the bush and look around for mineral prospects.

The feeling in the mining industry is that this is an important expenditure and a necessary one. If one were to analyze how many of these properties are in production now, you'd probably have to say "None" - properties that some person may have found. But what the people do do, of course, is to increase people's knowledge, and when economic conditions justify it, something happens.

But the decision itself for determining whether or not this program will continue will have to be determined on whether or not there's a judgment on whether the boardrooms made decisions to increase exploration activity that were triggered by this incentive.

Mr. Cable: I could see where the mineral exploration tax credit may be fairly problematic on evaluation, but the Yukon small business investment tax credit, I think might be more readily analyzed, in that one of the objectives set out in the handout is job creation.

What is the minister's intention with respect to the collection of that sort of information?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, I'd like to see analysis done as to what businesses take up the credit in time - probably it would have to be after the first two years of the credit being in place - and what impact it's had in terms of real business activity.

We do have, certainly, anecdotal information from some businesses now that they had been looking for investments in order to expand their business - I can think of a couple of examples in tourism - and they feel that this vehicle will be the ticket for them to secure those investments from local investors.

That anecdotal information, of course, will be another important feature in determining whether or not we consider this to have triggered new activity. But again, we'll be able to determine what has actually happened - like the mineral tax credit - as a result and what the companies that have taken advantage of the credits have actually accomplished.

Mr. Cable: I'm sure the minister is aware of the Yukon Business Summit of 1999. We've discussed it in the House here. One of their recommendations was that the government have a measurable and publicly reported objectives and performance indicators on its programs. The main performance indicator here with the small business investment tax credit, I would think, would be the creation of new jobs. I think the minister and his Minister of Economic Development have been selling some of these programs on that particular statistic. They expect more jobs to be created, and I think the minister here himself has used the phrase, "one job at a time", sort of thing.

So, it's interesting to hear just exactly what would be the indicators of success. I think the minister has referred generally to job creation. Is there any other sort of statistic that is readily usable to determine how effective this program is, particularly with respect to the Yukon small business investment tax credit?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, first of all, let me speak to the matter as a general proposition. I have spoken to people in our community who feel that investments made in the trade and investment strategy should only be made if there are very, very clear indicators of exact job creation performance at the end. They've expressed this opinion to me, saying that they're not in the business themselves, and they feel that the government should be very, very careful about launching into a new arena.

Now, when I asked them whether or not we should only expend monies in the area that they're personally engaged in - in this case, it was the mining industry - they admitted immediately that it was impossible for us to do that. Money that we spent on a geology program leads to how many jobs? There is one mine operating. Is that justification for the Legislature to say, "Well, maybe we should just slow down the geology program this year," or "Maybe we should put money into only those things we know are producing actual work." Or, do we have faith in an industry and think of some of the expenditures we make as investments in job creation in the long term? Do we have faith, so to speak, in that industry?

Now, for the people in the mining industry, they say, "Absolutely." We must have faith in the industry. The industry is going to rebound and money spent in the geology program, the exploration incentives program, the prospectors assistance program, and this mining tax credit, which they like, too. These are all completely worthwhile expenditures. But it's the other guys - make sure the other guys, whoever they are - we should be absolutely certain, to a T, whether or not a single expenditure is going to lead to so many jobs. Well, I think that that anecdote speaks for itself.

In the specific case of the small business tax credit, the corporation that receives the investment must file a report to the government, which will allow the government to see the performance of that particular business and will help determine the success of the program overall. So, I think we can probably get some sense of it after a couple of years, but there is a requirement that they report after four years.

Deputy Chair: Page 16, Jack. We're on 17 now.

Mr. Cable: Just a technical question. The monies that flow both under the small business investment tax credit and under the mineral exploration tax credit - will these be considered income for the following taxation year?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am informed that the answer is no.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I move that Bill No. 75, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be moved out of Committee without amendment.

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 72, An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance and Community Grants Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Deputy Chair: We will now go to Bill No. 73, Seniors Property Tax Deferment Act.

Deputy Chair: Is there any general debate?

Ms. Duncan: I just have one issue I'd like to raise with the minister - the consistency with the definition of "senior". I've raised this issue before in reference to other programs, and there's a very wide - I understand that the definition in this particular act is consistent with Revenue Canada's definition. I would like to express, for the record, encouragement to standardize this definition throughout Government of Yukon programs.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly. Point taken.

Mr. Jenkins: I just have a couple of questions for the minister, Mr. Chair. The minister mentioned a number of seniors owning their own homes in the Yukon - 535. Of those seniors, how many live or own homes in the taxing area that is controlled by YTG?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: I've been told approximately 30 of the 535.

Mr. Jenkins: So there appears to be about 505 senior property owners living inside the organized communities of the Yukon. This legislation is legislation that our party supports - welcomes - but it's going to be difficult for all of the communities in the Yukon to put in place a whole series of legislation to provide the same seniors property tax deferment as the Government of the Yukon has in place.

Why did the government not give consideration to being the umbrella over all of this legislation and just allowing the municipal governments to pass enabling legislation, with all of the paperwork and, after it was raised, and the carrying costs and the recovery being borne by a department in YTG? In a lot of the communities, there's not going to be enough of this work so that they can keep current on it. In the event of an estate that takes a long time to settle, it's going to involve a lot of presentation here in Whitehorse, where most wills are probated, to jump through all the hoops and finalize the estate.

So would the minister give consideration to streamlining this legislation so that the municipal governments can plug into it on a much better arrangement than is envisioned here in this existing legislation? It will eventually appear to be cumbersome.

I want to give speedy passage to this act, but I would urge the minister to bring back amending legislation so that it would be much easier for the municipal governments to plug in than what it is currently. Can the minister give that his consideration?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: In part, this is enabling legislation. The municipalities would be able to adopt the legislation by regulation - or pardon me, by bylaw - within their own structures and, therefore, this legislation would be able to help them in that manner.

Certainly, my department will be providing municipal administrative assistance for the first year of any program, should the municipalities decide to implement it. I know that we're going to the AYC in a month's time or so, and they have been consulted on this. They are supportive of it, in light of what we're doing, and they said that they do want to have some more chats with me, though, to see if it can be made simpler for them.

I do believe that if there are issues that arise from the AYC meeting, I'm looking to accommodate them, not find ways to negate them.

Mr. Jenkins: I thank the minister for his response, Mr. Chair. It seems to be a reasonable response and the feedback I have had from some of the AYC member communities is that they will probably only have a couple of these instances arise in their communities. They want to give their seniors the benefit of the program but, the way it's set up, they will have to address all the administration and continuing overall running of the program in their respective communities.

In the discussions that I had, it was pointed out by YTG to the respective communities that it should be a direct relationship between the seniors and the municipal government, that YTG shouldn't be in there, yet YTG is in there in another area dealing directly with the seniors through the pioneer utility grant. That's an example of another direct relationship between seniors in all Yukon communities and YTG. So, it just appears to be a step further where this legislation could be amended and it would facilitate an easier arrangement for seniors and for municipal governments.

That's what I'm asking the minister to do. I have his concurrence and I thank him for saying it.

Mrs. Edelman: I echo a lot of the concerns and points brought forward by the Member for Klondike. I know that there is another program where we deal directly with the seniors, and that's the Yukon supplement, which is directly from YTG to Yukon seniors, so there is another precedent for dealing directly without the municipal level of government.

But, once again, I want to restate our concerns about the idea of this reverse mortgage, in some ways. I've heard in particular from more rural communities, where the housing market is especially volatile - communities like Faro, for example, where sometimes your house is worth an awful lot of money and other times you just cannot sell it. The problem is that, when you go to sell, you can't get it back and that concern has been relayed to me by a couple of more rural communities that have that problem with their housing market.

By and large, the concerns that the Member for Klondike raised are ours as well, but if the territorial government were to take over the administration of this particular act at the municipal level, then that would certainly save administrative fees and, in the long run, that would help with the O&M of these programs, as well as so many others that municipalities have taken on for the betterment of the Yukon seniors and Yukon people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, keeping with this philosophy of the new Municipal Act and others, we will continue to work with municipalities.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, the comment here is that the termination of the agreement is adequately secured. I'll read from the new bill, "...the collector of taxes may, by at least 180 day notice in writing to the eligible senior, terminate the agreement."

What is the mode of delivery? How does the senior get the notice?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: They receive it by registered mail.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, I move you report Bill No. 73, Seniors Property Tax Deferment Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Deputy Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, I move you report Bill No. 74, An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Deputy Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, let me just say a couple of quick things about this bill.

For anybody who wants to know what's in this bill, they should refer to second reading remarks. It says it all.

Deputy Chair: If there is no more general debate, we'll go the clauses.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move Bill No. 76, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1991, out of Committee without amendment.

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

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. May the House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole.

Mr. McRobb: The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 18, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1999-2000; Bill No. 15, entitled Fourth Appropriation Act, 1998-99; Bill No. 75, entitled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, Bill No. 72, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance and Community Grants Act; Bill No. 73, entitled Seniors Property Tax Deferment Act; Bill No. 74, entitled An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act; and, Bill No. 76, entitled An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1991, and directed me to report them without amendment.

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

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: I declare the report carried.

Government bills?

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 14, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 14, First Appropriation Act, 1999-2000, be read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Government Leader that Bill No. 14, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1999-2000, be now read a third time and do pass.

Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called. Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Mr. Hardy: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Disagree.

Mr. Phillips: Disagree.

Mr. Jenkins: Disagree.

Ms. Duncan: Disagree.

Mr. Cable: Disagree.

Mrs. Edelman: Disagree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 10 yea, six nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 14 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 18, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 18, Second Appropriation Act, 1999-2000, be now read a third time and pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Government Leader that Bill No. 18, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1999-2000, be now read a third time and do pass.

Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called. Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Mr. Hardy: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Disagree.

Mr. Phillips: Disagree.

Mr. Jenkins: Disagree.

Ms. Duncan: Disagree.

Mr. Cable: Disagree.

Mrs. Edelman: Disagree.

Chair: Mr. Speaker, the results are 10 yea, six nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 18 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 15, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 15, Fourth Appropriation Act, 1998-99, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Government Leader that Bill No. 15, entitled Fourth Appropriation Act, 1998-99, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 15 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 75, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 75, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Government Leader that Bill No. 75, entitled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 75 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 72, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Keenan.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: I move that Bill No. 72, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance and Community Grants Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 72, entitled An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance and Community Grants Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 72 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 73, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Keenan.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: I move that Bill No. 73, entitled Seniors Property Tax Deferment Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 73, entitled Seniors Property Tax Deferment Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 73 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 74, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Keenan.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: I move that Bill No. 74, entitled An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 74, entitled An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 74 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 76, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 76, entitled An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act,1991, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Government Leader that Bill No. 76, entitled An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act,1991, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 76 has passed this House.

Speaker: We are now prepared to receive the Commissioner, in her capacity as Lieutenant Governor, to grant assent to the bills that have passed this House.

Commissioner: Please be seated.

Speaker: Madam Commissioner, the Assembly has, at its present session, passed certain bills to which, in the name and on behalf of the Assembly, I respectfully request your assent.

Clerk: First Appropriation Act, 1999-2000; Second Appropriation Act, 1999-2000; Fourth Appropriation Act, 1998-99; An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act; An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance and Community Grants Act; Seniors Property Tax Deferment Act; An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act; An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1991.

Commissioner: I hereby assent to the bills as enumerated by the Clerk.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I move

THAT the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the Government Leader, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet;

THAT the Speaker give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and

THAT, if the Speaker is unable to act owing to illness or other causes, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Speaker: It has been moved by the government House leader

THAT the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the Government Leader, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet;

THAT the Speaker give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and

THAT, if the Speaker is unable to act owing to illness or other causes, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I move the House to now adjourn.

Speaker: It has been moved by the government House leader that the House do now adjourn.

Speaker: This House now stands adjourned.

99-1-216

Health and Social Services Council (Yukon) 1997-98 Annual Report (Sloan)

99-1-217

Health status report (1998) (Sloan)

99-1-218

Aboriginal participation in mining, report on (December 1998): ninth annual report (Harding)

99-1-219

Standing Committee on Public Accounts 1999 report (Volume 13) (Ostashek, Chair, Standing Committee on Public Accounts)

99-1-98

Social assistance paid and charge-backs to Indian Affairs: 1996 through 1999, to date; details of expenditures invoiced to Indian Affairs (Sloan)

Oral, Hansard, p. 4773

99-1-99

Debt counselling: process (Sloan)

Oral, Hansard, p. 4774

99-1-100

Oil and gas rights disposition permits: explanation of (Harding)

Oral, Hansard, p. 4379

99-1-101

Tulsequah Chief property, Redfern Resources, Ltd.: economic benefits to the Yukon (Harding)

Oral, Hansard, p. 4382

99-1-102

Oil and gas disposition: size of parcels of land (Harding)

Oral, Hansard, p. 4379

99-1-103

Whitehorse Correctional Centre superintendent: explanation of one-year term position (Moorcroft)

Oral, Hansard, p. 5011 to 5012