Whitehorse, Yukon

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce the Mayor of Dawson City, His Worship Glen Everitt, Councillor Eleanor Van Bibber and our municipal treasurer, Dale Courtice, who are seated in the gallery here today.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have three legislative returns for tabling.

Speaker: Are there any further documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Tourism with respect to the Beringia Interpretative Centre. Last week the minister confirmed that she and her department are working on a Friends of Beringia model for the operation of this facility. Will the minister advise the House what consultation she has had with other museums or with the Yukon Historical and Museums Association about her plans for a Friend's of Beringia model, and also what views these organizations have expressed on the matter?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the MacBride Museum. My officials have contacted the Transportation Museum, obviously, which is one of the partners within the model this year. The Yukon Historical and Museums Association - I have spoken to them briefly about another matter; I have not spoken to them about this issue.

What happened is that this was sort of a last minute effort to put things together for this year. There were problems - the tourism season started long before we were sworn into office. This was the best we could do this year, and definitely we are going to have a better process for next year.

Mr. Fairclough: The Liberal government brags about their ability to consult with people, yet this is an important move on behalf of government in bringing a new model to this territory. We already know directly from the lips of the Minister of Education that the word "consultation" means absolutely nothing to this Liberal government. I should point out to the minister the one serious reservation expressed by the heritage community is that this proposed Friends of Beringia would end up competing with existing heritage groups for both funding and volunteer help.

Will the minister agree to provide the House with a list of the meetings she has attended or phone conversations she has had with existing heritage groups about this and will she table all relevant correspondence?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: The member opposite is perhaps confused. I just admitted this was sort of a last-ditch effort this year because the tourism season was well underway by the time we were sworn in. I have also told him whom I did consult with and whom I didn't.

What I will do for the member opposite is give the member opposite a list of the conversations that are taking place between the department and the various organizations, and like I am saying, we're going to do a better job next year. This was the best we could do for this year, you can't expect more than that.

As for the competing interests with Beringia, I have heard that concern over and over again. We certainly heard that on the side opposite when we were in opposition and that is something that I am keeping very much in mind. A lot of this is going to be dealt with, as I have mentioned before to the member opposite, through the museum study.

The museum study had been done 10 years ago in the Lord study and we're doing it again. We're going to be evaluating issues like the Beringia Centre and the Northern Lights Centre in Watson Lake and many of the cultural centres that don't fit the normal criteria for museums here in the Yukon.

It's something that we're working very hard at. We're giving it best efforts, and next year, you'll see a much better product. Thank you.

Mr. Fairclough: Well, Mr. Speaker, when the NDP was in government, we made a commitment to increase funding to the Yukon Historical and Museums Association by $25,000 a year on an ongoing basis. Now this Liberal government is already building a track record of running away from the commitments in this budget. This is creating a lot of uncertainty and anxiety for the non-governmental organizations.

Will the minister give her word that the existing commitments to the heritage community will be honoured and that the increased funding promised to the YHMA will not be diverted to any other purpose such as Friends of Beringia?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, we have tabled the budget in its entirety and we are committed to the expenditures therein. We are aware of the concerns from the communities, and it's something that we are dealing with. Many of those concerns will be dealt with during the museum study. There is a very large consultation process attached to that.

I am not too sure what more we can do. The member opposite keeps thinking that there's some big problem here, but we're doing the best we can this year. We were very late in the season; it's the best we could do, and I'm confident that when we work with our partners in the tourism industry and through the historic sector, as well as the cultural sector, we can come up with a really good solution.

Question re: Beringia Interpretive Centre

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister on the same subject.

Last week, the minister told the House that her department is working with the Transportation Museum, and again today she confirmed this on the same kind of modified Friends of Beringia model for this season.

There is correspondence from the MacBride Museum explaining why it could not accept the previous government's offer to run the Beringia Centre at this time.

Will the minister table the agreement with the Transportation Museum as well as any other correspondence she or her department has had with other heritage organizations about the operation of the Beringia Centre this summer?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, we're still in the negotiation process with a number of organizations. The organizations that we're still in negotiations with, I don't feel at liberty to table the letters to them; however, I will keep the member opposite updated. I will give him a very clear indication of where we are within the negotiation process. Like I say, a lot of this has to be looked at in the full picture of what museums are in the Yukon Territory, and that will happen through the museum study that is being undertaken this year.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the minister also told the House last week and again today that we are about to embark on another study of Yukon museums, leading to some wonderful Liberal view of the museum world. Can the minister tell the House what group or groups she has spoken with in the heritage community that identified a museum study as a priority at this time?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that came up during the campaign. It came up long before the campaign. It came up when we were in opposition. There is definitely a need out there to take a look at where we are with culture and heritage and museums here in the Yukon Territory. As recently as two weeks ago when we were in Watson Lake, we had extensive conversations with the Northern Lights facility. Their problem is that they don't fit into a museum strategy for funding. Over and over again, we hear that there is a problem.

I have talked to some First Nation operators. I have also talked to operators in Dawson City and Beaver Creek, Watson Lake and Carmacks. This is just since I have been elected, but there have been other conversations, obviously, over the years that we have had with those various operators in a number of communities.

I don't want to send over forests and forests of material to the member opposite, but whatever information about that issue that I can send over to him, I certainly will.

Mr. Fairclough: It's not what we on this side of the House are hearing, that this should be a priority at this time. It sounds like we have another rogue Liberal minister charging around deciding what needs to be done, similar to the Minister of Education, without any consultation with stakeholders. Of course, there are a lot of Liberal faithfuls out there who haven't received their rewards yet for their services. It would be interesting to speculate who might be in line to head up this museum study that nobody is asking for. Will the minister give her word that she will consult properly with other museum boards and the heritage organization before making any further decision on how or when to proceed with this study?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Part of the consultation process with the museum study obviously is going to be going out and speaking to the YHMA. They will be speaking to the cultural and heritage operators in the territory, as well as the other museum operators and similar facilities. That's part of the process. To be absolutely clear, the people with whom I've spoken - I haven't asked what party card they hold. I take information and input from anybody in the industry who has expertise, and I value that input even if the members opposite don't.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question re: Electrical rate relief

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question for the Premier in her capacity as minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation.

Back a few years ago, the previous Yukon Party government introduced a rate relief program for electrical residential consumers on the first 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity they used each month. The subsequent NDP government introduced clawback, which reduced rate relief to zero for consumers who used over 1,500 kilowatt hours per month. The NDP government then introduced their rate stabilization fund that increased power rates a further nine percent. We now have power rates that are almost 20 percent higher today than they were three years ago - some stabilization fund.

My question for the Premier: will she give electrical consumers a break by eliminating the NDP clawback? Will she do that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to the rate stabalization fund that was introduced by the previous government and, as I have already indicated in debate to the member opposite, the rate stabalization fund and its schedules are in place and will remain in place until the estimated expiry of the fund in 2002.

I have also already indicated to the member opposite that there is no, and there will be no, application made by Yukon Energy Corporation for any kind of a rate increase in the year 2000; that is a commitment by the Energy Corporation that is being followed through.

Now the overall interest of the member opposite, as is the interest of all members of this House, is fair and reasonable electrical rates for Yukoners - consumers of all types - and that is certainly something that we are committed to and that we are working for in the long term.

Mr. Jenkins: But the minister didn't answer the question; the question was about the clawback. What is she going to do with the clawback, Mr. Speaker?

Now Yukon voters have changed the government but we still have the same old NDP play under this new Liberal/ Democratic Party government.

The $10 million rate stabilization fund established by the NDP will be depleted, probably by as early as 2002, leaving Yukon ratepayers with yet another increase in their power rates. What contingency plan does the Premier have in place when this fund is depleted? What is she going to do to ensure that Yukon power bills are not increased once again?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we and the Yukon Energy Corporation - and the Yukon Development Corporation - are working toward: to ensure that Yukoners have affordable electricity that also meets our environmental commitments and our environmental standards.

The member is correct that the rate stabilization fund is anticipated to end in the year 2002 - and that's an anticipated end. The Yukon Energy Corporation and Yukon Development Corporation have been working very hard on this issue and are working toward a long-term vision of power in the territory. We are continuing our efforts, and when we have a situation where we are prepared to enter into discussions, or where we're at the point where we're ready to have discussions with Yukoners on those options, we will do that.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, let the record reflect that the minister responsible has yet to answer the question about clawback and has yet to advise the House about what she's going to do when the stabilization fund is depleted.

On another initiative, the Yukon Energy Corporation, under the previous NDP government, was planning to build a power line from the Mayo dam to Dawson City, at an estimated cost of some $25 million. Will the Liberal government be continuing with this project, and what effect will this capital undertaking have on Yukoners' power bills or tax bills?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct in part of his preamble, in that I agree with him, as I stated earlier, that the rate stabilization fund put in place by the previous government, is estimated to end in the year 2002. Beyond that, the member and I disagree on a number of points.

With respect to the Mayo-Dawson transmission line, it is a proposal that was suggested in the early 1990s by the previous government to the previous government. It is a matter that the Yukon Energy Corporation and the Yukon Development Corporation have done a great deal of homework and due diligence on. They have examined all the issues with respect to impact on ratepayers and impact on taxpayers - or not - technical issues, and options for further power generation along such a transmission line. That homework is before the board and it is anticipated that it will come to me and our government for a decision in the very near future.

Question re: Teslin School resource room

Mr. Keenan: My question today is for the Minister of Education. While in government, we encouraged a collaborative approach to community needs. In Teslin, we directed the departments of Education and Social Services to work with the school council and the Teslin Tlingit Council to find a solution to the community's needs. They have now requested a resource room for the Teslin School.

I have met with the minister privately and expressed concern with the lack of progress to date. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to provide an update for me now.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not able to get back to the member opposite's requests on this issue. I know that he has sent correspondence. I have been in exchange of correspondence with the school, with the department, and I will, when the House rises, spent a little more time on the issue and will get back to the member with more information at a later date.

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I know what the Department of Education is doing. They say that the staffing formula is followed, and that extra staff were hired to implement and individualize the educational plans - so we are doing things there. I know that the Education Act is up for review and that is going to be looking after the future, but I am really worried right now about today, the immediate problem at this point in time. The community has asked for a resource room. It's a basis of good partnership involving a whole community. The only thing at stake at this point in time is our children's and our villages' future right there, so I would really like to ask the minister if you could respond favourably to the community solution, because the community solution has been floating there for some time and they are desperately looking for an answer. So, could I get the minister to commit to that?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, I have committed to the project. I understand that the principal for the school in Teslin is currently away on vacation. I have also instructed the department and my assistant to arrange a meeting with the principal and with the school council to sit down to discuss the whole scenario with respect to a resource room. I know that the resource room is also considered, in the correspondence I have received from the council, as a utilization room for troubled students or students who do have learning problems, emotional problems. So it is a serious issue that I don't take lightly. I am trying to arrange it so that we can all sit down together at one time, and I will certainly keep the member opposite apprised of that, and hopefully would encourage him at this time to attend that session when it is arranged.

Mr. Keenan: Well, certainly, Mr. Speaker, even if I have to cancel a sheep hunt I'll be at that meeting. What I'd like to understand from the minister is when is it going to be. Let's try and make it so that it doesn't interfere with community priorities such as hunting and gathering, but also that it's in time for this calendar year.

So, we don't have much time. We've only got less than six weeks before the school year starts, much to the chagrin of many teachers out there, so I would ask the Education minister to take it seriously.

It seems to me that, when we have a very transparent need that's been around for a little time now, if we can't find some resources then there's something awfully wrong. If we can find $124,000 for Mr. Taylor, in the House, along with the benefits, then something is desperately wrong.

So, I would very much like to be kept in the loop as to when and where, and I'd like the minister's commitment that we will find a solution and, if it's not this solution, that there will be a solution that is agreeable to the community at large in time for this calendar year.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of points of correction. Mr. Taylor's salary is in the range of $82,000 to $124,000.

I have committed to the member opposite to get moving on this and I have already been criticized by another member on the other side for not consulting properly. I am going to go through a consultation process with the school council, with the principal, with department officials, with the member opposite, with other community members if they want to be there, with parents, with the students themselves, with whoever wants to take part in qualifying this resource room as a viable need of the school.

I have asked the department to keep me apprised, and as soon as the principal gets back we'll get to it this summer, and I probably would have got a whole lot more done had we not spent the time in the House that we have on going through a budget that has been proposed by the members opposite.

Question re: Association of school council chairs

Mr. Fairclough: My question is for the minister who doesn't believe in consultation, and we all know who that is. At their last meeting the school council chairs, they approved a resolution requesting government funding for an association of school council chairs. Does the Minister of Education support the intent to work with the association of school council chairs to give parents a stronger voice in the education of their children?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Now, I have to get on to the consultation process - don't do; don't do. In response to the member opposite, through the review of the Education Act, the school council representatives on the committee do have funding to participate. It's a line item within the Education budget, and I have instructed Mr. Taylor to look at it and allocate it appropriately.

On the issue specifically that the member opposite is bringing up, I am not fully aware of the situation but I certainly will look into it further and get back to him with information on it.

Mr. Fairclough: That member hired a person to head up this review and he doesn't know what his salary is yet. He was the only one involved in hiring this person. Certainly, he would have told him what his salary would be. $124,000 is what I would suspect it would be.

I'm glad that the minister is willing to at least look into the matter and to try and work with an association of school council chairs. Will he fund this new association adequately to ensure that they will be full partners in the Education Act review?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: The member opposite is certainly very familiar with the needs of the school councils and the presidents of the school councils. Obviously he's very aware of it because his party on the other side chose not to do anything for three and a half years. They could have provided the funding, as he is obviously familiar with the fact that they need it. I told him already that I would look into it. I would look into the needs of the school councils, the presidents of the school councils, and would get back to him with more information.

Mr. Fairclough: This is important to parents and school children across the Yukon. I asked the member and said that this association would give parents a stronger voice. The minister can tell his department to find $124,000 to hire their friend, the former Liberal leader, into a position nobody asked for. He needs to respect the other partners in education. The minister has alienated the other partners by appointing a former YTA president to head up the Education Act review, compromising the impartiality of the review. He has admitted that he has not consulted with the partners in education. The minister must change the way he operates. The school capital construction should be based on actual -

Speaker: Order please. Would the member please get to the question?

Mr. Fairclough: - and not buy votes for Liberal ridings.

Will the minister recognize that parents need to be an equal partner and will he respect the school councils and the community priorities when determining future capital budget needs?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I do appreciate the little leeway that the member opposite just gave me in suggesting future budgetary needs. It really is very disappointing, Mr. Speaker. The members opposite, in their attempts to belittle this very important task that Mr. Taylor has been assigned, along with the rest of the committee - I think it's time for all members in the House to put our partisan concerns behind us and allow Mr. Taylor and his team to get on with the tasks, and that it is of profound importance to all - educators, parents, teachers of this territory. I would just urge the members opposite to wait and see what the chair of the Education Act committee will produce, along with his team, before they prejudge the outcome of the final report.

Question re: Rural road upgrade program

Mr. McRobb: Well, isn't that a beauty, Mr. Speaker. "Let's put our partisan views behind us." The minister won't have to lean too far back before he bumps into the partisan views - the former leader. Now they want to sweep it under the rug. We're all here to hold them accountable and that's what we're doing.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Community and Transportation Services about the rural road upgrade program. She said there was no change in policy. The Liberals apparently pride themselves on the public consultation that went into the projects that were approved.

Can the minister tell us who requested the rural road upgrade projects to be done on the Kusawa Lake road for $50,000, the front end of the Aishihik Road for $50,000 and the Policeman's Point road?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The work on the Policeman's Point Road was requested specifically by the department itself through the local maintenance camp. The work is being done to facilitate snow clearing in the winter. Residents in the area were consulted about work taking place and are in support of the project. Clearing has commenced in the area and the work is being performed by a local contractor.

I don't have the information at my fingertips on who requested the other ones, but I would be pleased to provide it in writing to the member.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, I see a glaring contradiction between the Liberals' claim that they consult the public and respond to the public needs, when, in fact, the minister just admitted that this was a departmental priority. We are quite disturbed. This public program has now turned into a slush fund for the department.

Mr. Speaker, the department has other budget lines to cover its priorities. This is a public program. Why did the minister cut in half the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation's application to free up funds for the department to use for its priorities?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, that isn't what happened at all. There are many, many requests received from all over the territory for funding under this program. I do note with interest that last year a million and a half dollars was budgeted, and this year the former NDP administration saw fit to budget only a million dollars for this project. It is a rural roads upgrading project; there are a number of needs, and these needs are being carried out.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to revise history. Last year, the amount allocated for this program in our budget was $1 million; we decided to supplement it with another half a million dollars in the supplementary budget. Mr. Speaker, later today, we'll be reviewing a Liberal supplementary budget. Did they bring in extra money? The answer is no. They brought in money only for a few projects, they didn't have money to meet their priorities.

Now the minister has said that this was a departmental priority. If the minister wanted the department to continue these projects, then they should have introduced money in the supplementary budget to meet those priorities and leave the money there for the public. Why didn't she introduce money in the supplementary budget to meet the department's priorities instead of taking the money away from the public?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: What the member is saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As of now, four of the 25 projects have commenced. All the work currently underway is being performed by local contractors. There is still an opportunity for local contractors to become involved with most of the rural roads projects.

Staff from Community and Transportation Services are currently working toward one CFA with the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation. There may be an opportunity to enter into more CFAs with First Nations once project planning is complete.

Anyone can request rural road upgrading including rural residents, communities, First Nations and MLAs. Projects are funded based on a number of criteria, including problems with the road, safety concerns, number of people using the roads, and the level of demonstrated local support for the project. All roads in the Yukon are funded based on the same criteria, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Deputy Chair: I now call Committee of the Whole to Order. Do members wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed

Deputy Chair: We will recess for 15 minutes.

Recess

Deputy Chair: I will call the Committee of the Whole to order. Committee will be dealing with Bill No. 3 - Second Appropriation Act, 2000-01.

Bill No. 3 - Second Appropriation Act, 2000-01

Deputy Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: During the election campaign, the Yukon Liberal Party promised, for many good reasons, to retable the budget that had been presented by the previous NDP government. We have done this. We obviously have many priorities of our own, which we shall be implementing over time over this mandate.

This supplementary budget begins that process. It contains several initiatives, which we consider to be of urgent interest. I have spoken of these initiatives in my second reading remarks and will not repeat myself here, other than to say that I think the contents of this bill address some immediate problems, which I hope all members will agree, require our attention at this time. If there are any general questions, with respect to the supplementary, I would be pleased to respond to them.

I would just highlight for members very quickly that three of the key points we are emphasizing in this supplementary budget are rebuilding the economy with $250,000 for YMIP and the student grants increase of 20 percent for this year - $496,000 - and the youth leadership project for $197,000. This is of course a priority throughout the Yukon Territory.

It is particularly important at this time with the increase in student grants, Mr. Chair, that we have them in place for this September and the start of the next school year, for our university and post-secondary students.

So, I'll be pleased to entertain any specific questions the members may have on the supplementary budget.

Mr. Fentie: First, I would like to begin by stating that the NDP caucus, the official opposition, will not, as we voted in second reading, be supporting this supplementary budget, but I want to point out that we're not voting against this budget for what's in it. We are voting against this budget for what's not in it.

Now, the Liberals made many, many demands while in opposition and they made many, many commitments to Yukoners during the election; commitments that resulted in Yukoners believing in the Liberals - that they would do what they said they would do. So far, we have seen little evidence of that fact in this sitting, beginning with the throne speech. There was nothing in that throne speech that would indicate where the Liberals intend to take this territory from now and into the future.

Then, we have this supplementary. This again, shows very little indication of what the Liberal priorities really are. It seems to me, and this side of the House, that this was a hurried supplementary to try and appease some Liberal supporters, insiders and operatives to at least get that on the record and expend the money in that manner.

The importance of us voting against this supplementary budget for what's not in it is vital to the recent election and what took place in the recent election and in holding a government accountable, because during an election, commitments made are, in our belief, commitments that should be honoured. When the Liberal government decided to draft such a supplementary, they had ample time, opportunity and indeed the resources, with a $56.2-million surplus, to live up to many, many more of their commitments now.

The Liberals committed to highway maintenance. We all know in this territory that highway maintenance is a seasonal operation that must be done during the summer months, and this supplementary budget does not reflect the commitment the Liberals made to increasing highway maintenance, which indeed would have put a lot of Yukoners to work if - if - they would have lived up that commitment. They chose not to, even though they had the money available to do so. So, that is a reason why we, in the official opposition, the NDP, chose to vote against this supplementary budget.

Mr. Chair, time and time and time again while in opposition, the Member for Riverdale South made demands on legal aid funding. During the election, commitments were made for legal aid funding by the Liberal side and yet, here in this supplementary budget, there is absolutely zero - zero dollars - committed to those single mothers who so desperately need representation, and for whom the Member for Riverdale South was such a champion such a short time ago.

The money was there; the choice had to be made. It could have been made; the Liberal side chose against single mothers and chose against those in need.

Mr. Chair, the Premier herself is on record that the answer to the Tombstone problem and how that relates to certainty in mining was to buy out the Tombstone claims. The Liberals do not believe that there should be mining in parks and yet, with this sizable surplus and a golden opportunity at the recent Dawson City gold show to live up to that commitment, there is nothing in this supplementary budget.

Heritage funding - another commitment by the Liberals. They had the money; they could have made the choice, it is a matter of choice; they chose not to and instead left it or omitted it from this supplementary.

That, again, is the reason why we, in the official opposition, will be voting against this supplementary budget.

Mr. Chair, it's a well-known fact that the Liberals supported increasing health care facilities for seniors in Watson Lake. They took office with a $56.2-million surplus but not one dime is directed to, committed to, the seniors of Watson Lake. Their own candidate, during the election - and before the election - was very vocal about the need for increasing health care facilities for seniors in that community. Yet the Liberals chose not to. They ignored those seniors and elders in the community of Watson Lake and contradicted their commitment. One can only wonder why that is, with the resources available to them and the time and the choice they could have made. Is it possible that Watson Lake is now going to be punished for not voting Liberal?

These are questions that play in people's minds today, given what this government has done to date.

Furthermore, Mr. Chair, we vote against this supplementary budget, because on the one hand the Liberal government has stated to Yukoners that, to ensure that there is certainty in this territory, we are going to implement the NDP's budget. We are going to ensure that every commitment in that budget is honoured. Yet we have witnessed here, day in and day out, the Liberal side rearrange and cherry pick the budget in its entirety and direct money to their own priorities when, after making that commitment and bringing in this supplementary, they could have honoured and addressed their priorities in a supplementary with the sizable surplus that they had.

So, I know that the Liberal press release has already printed that the NDP votes against youth and the mining industry and all the rest of it and that is a bunch of bunk. This government - the former government; the NDP government - did a great deal for youth in this territory, did a great deal in terms of educating our young people, did a great deal in helping those in need. We did a lot by not increasing taxes, and by in fact bringing in tax decreases, which the Premier herself now tried to capture as their own agenda. Furthermore, the Liberals have cherry picked the budget the way they have by trying to direct money such as the dollars in rural roads, which were meant for the public use. Now we have the department making the expenditures themselves. They could have addressed those department priorities in this supplementary budget and they chose not to.

Mr. Chair, we aren't voting against the youth of this territory. We are not voting against miners in this territory, and when it comes to mining in this territory, the Yukon mining incentive program is a product of the NDP. The facts are that the Liberal side, in the context of bringing certainty to this territory and attracting investment, could have done a lot more toward that end in this supplementary budget. They chose not to. So, Mr. Chair, we in the official opposition will not be supporting this supplementary budget. We are not supporting this supplementary budget, not because of what is in this budget, but because of what is not in this budget.

Thank you.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, I rise in support of many of the initiatives contained in this supplementary budget, but I cannot support this supplementary budget because it does not address the many outstanding issues and the many claims that the Liberals made prior to this recent election, and during this recent election - claims that they were going to address specific areas. Now by my count, there were 122 commitments made by this Yukon Liberal Party, and contained in the supplementary budget are just two initiatives. There are 120 more to go, Mr. Chair.

Now the expectation out there, Mr. Chair, is that this new Liberal government has a very cosy relationship with their colleagues in Ottawa and that the benefits are going to flow and accrue to the Yukon; such has not proven to be the case. We only have to take the Premier back to her gold show attendance with the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and the bomb that he dropped at the gold show - so much for this wonderful relationship; so much for this litany of broken promises.

Now, let's just look at what is happening. There was a government coming to power and there's $56.2 million, confirmed by the Finance department, as of March 31, 2000. That's the money in the bank.

There's no excuse whatsoever for not addressing a number or a lot more of the initiatives that the Liberals made mention of during the election campaign and hounded on the previous NDP government - the issue of legal aid. Where is that today? That could have been included in this supplementary budget. It's not. It's under review.

A multi-level health care facility for both Watson Lake and Dawson was promised by the Liberal candidate for Watson Lake. Where is that today? Under review; being studied. In fact, for awhile it wasn't even acknowledged.

We look at some of the other initiatives undertaken by this government, where they could have reduced taxes for Yukoners, both personal income taxes and taxes on highway gasoline and diesel fuel. They haven't done any of that. In fact, when you concentrate on the bill for the reduction in personal income tax, that was recently passed by this Liberal government, to the one that was passed and presented by the previous NDP government, it's just a one-time shot. It doesn't continue for the number of years that the NDP had it in place. So, it is not even on the same playing field.

The other area that concerns me greatly is by directing the funds the way this current Liberal government is doing, we're creating two Yukons. There's Whitehorse and what is referred to as TROY, the rest of Yukon.

Look at the money that's being allocated to highways. It's gradually being all pulled back.

Look at the commitment to enhance the capital budget for highway construction - normal maintenance, clearing the brush along the rights-of-way of the highways, Mr. Chair. There isn't anything in there. Nothing whatsoever.

Yes, all of these Liberal government members are elected from in and around Whitehorse, but the Yukon has a lot of rural seats, Mr. Chair, and to distinguish between them to the extent that this Liberal government is taking is not fair.

The major issue facing us today here in the Yukon, Mr. Chair, is that very little, if anything, is being done by this Liberal government on the issue of land claims. Flowing from that is the devastated state of our mining industry, mining exploration, oil and gas, forestry. Now, a lot of these are under the care and control of the federal government, but the expectations of the electorate in the Yukon, when they elected this government, was that the Liberals here in the Yukon would have a wonderful, cosy relationship with the Liberals in Ottawa and things would happen once again.

Now, this is proving to be some cosy relationship, because, if anything, Mr. Chair, we are going backwards - further backwards, I might add - under this Liberal government than we have ever been before. In fact, the last shining light on the horizon, our visitor industry, had a very slow and troubled start this year, and it'll probably not be a great year overall.

Mr. Chair, there are so many initiatives that could have been addressed by this Liberal government in this supplementary budget to kick-start the economy again, get it rolling, get Yukoners to work and provide some optimism. The only optimism left is the honeymoon period with the Liberals, as to how long it's going to extend. The reality is going to set in very quickly come this fall, when we see what this Liberal government is going to present to Yukoners by way of legislation in the fall sitting. The next budget cycle will be their own.

It's very ironic that we had the Liberals in opposition voting against the budget - the previous NDP budget - and then tabling that same budget - defending it - and saying that this is what we need to move forward. We have to provide certainty, and we are providing certainty by tabling this budget - that's bunk; pure bunk. There's a lot of fluff around it, too. The bottom line at the end of the day is that we have gone backwards here in the Yukon since the Liberals have been elected.

The hopes and expectations of Yukoners are being dashed. Yes, there's still hope and expectations out there, but come this fall, I wonder how many more Yukoners are going to be leaving to find work. The population is spiralling down; unemployment is spiralling up. We now have the second highest unemployment rate in Canada after Newfoundland. I guess that's something to be proud of.

Mr. Chair, the prime tool that a government needs is money to implement sound policies. They have the money, but we haven't seen any sound policies to move forward. I cannot find one area that isn't under review. Everything is up in the air. It sounds as if Yukoners have elected a government that didn't expect to be elected and didn't have any idea as to what to do once they were elected. That is very much the opinion shared by many, many Yukoners and, yes, there was a feeling out there that we had to get rid of the NDP because they weren't doing a good job but it looks like we have gone from the frying pan into the fire. It's some fire. As more and more Yukoners move south to find work, to leave a lifestyle that they have come to love and cherish here, we slowly dwindle in our major resource - that's our people, our Yukoners, our skilled tradespeople, our skilled professionals. These individuals are leaving the Yukon in record number. It's sad. The Yukon used to be a destination of choice during the summer months for individuals seeking summer employment. This year that's not the case. Yes, we do have a number of individuals choosing to come to the Yukon to pick mushrooms but, beyond that, the pool of skilled labour that we used to attract is down considerably.

The message is out there, Mr. Chair. We're no longer a destination of choice, and that's sad. That's really sad, because the Yukon has probably got the greatest potential in Canada. We have a wealth of minerals. We have a wealth of oil and gas. We have a wealth of forestry. We have some of the most scenic and greatest beauty in all of North America. This government sits on its nest egg of $56.2 million. About the only initiative that has been done or undertaken by this Liberal government, Mr. Chair, is the initiative of appointing known Liberal supporters to some of the plum positions within government, and that in itself is sad - very sad.

In opposition, Mr. Chair, the Liberals went on at great length about an all-party committee to appoint individuals to these various roles, boards and review committees, like the review of the Education Act. Once they get into power, well, we have this supporter - this previous Liberal leader - we have to put into the system and find him a good job. I guess, over the course of the summer, we'll see a lot of initiatives of this sort coming to the forefront.

I predict, Mr. Chair, that as soon as the Legislature rises, within a few weeks, announcements will be forthcoming from this Liberal government as to the appointments of known Liberal supporters to some very plush and plum jobs within government.

Mr. Chair, I will not be supporting this supplementary bill. I will not be supporting it, not because of what it contains, because I agree to a large extent with what it contains and support the initiatives.

I will not be supporting this bill because of what it doesn't contain and what it should contain. And it should contain a lot more than what it does. It should address the many, many issues out there that can get this economy rolling again, put Yukoners to work and enhance the lifestyle of all Yukoners. I'm disappointed that this first initiative and thrust by this Liberal government is so dismal, and I look forward to a much-improved initiative come this fall and the next budget cycle, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I'd like to thank the members opposite for their third reading speeches and remind them that we are in general debate on the supplementary budget. That being said, I'm certain they're now prepared to clear through given that there were no questions asked.

I'd just like to advise the members, again, that what the Liberal government did upon election was follow through upon our commitment to table the NDP budget in its entirety. And what we have been endeavouring to do is pass that budget and provide Yukoners with the certainty that they have requested. Within the first 90 days of taking office, we have addressed three key initiatives of the 122 priorities outlined. We have addressed rebuilding the Yukon economy, we have followed through on our carefully costed and itemized commitment to Yukon students and we have expressed our support and concern for youth throughout the territory in the youth leadership project.

The supplementary budget reflects accurately the fiscal state of the territory government. Much has been made by members opposite of the financial position of the territorial government at March 31. I would remind members opposite that this government took office on May 6. The budget was spent, and Mr. Chair, what we have done in a very short period of time is prudently managed Yukon's fiscal resources to address three key initiatives that impact upon the lives of all Yukoners and work toward the fulfilment of our election commitments, our commitments as opposition and our efforts toward representing all Yukoners with sound, good government.

Deputy Chair: Is there any further general debate on Bill No. 3? We will now proceed to the departments.

Executive Council Office

Unanimous consent re: Bill No. 3 - Second Appropriation Act, 2000-01

Mr. Jenkins: Pursuant to an agreement among House leaders, we have agreed to carry the schedules, clauses and title of Bill No. 3, Second Appropriation Act, 2000-0, in its entirety.

Deputy Chair: Is there unanimous consent among members to carry the schedules, clauses and title of Bill No. 3, Second Appropriation Act, 2000-01 in its entirety?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Deputy Chair: Unanimous consent has been granted and the schedules, clauses and title of Bill No. 3, Second Appropriation Act, 2000-01, are carried.

Bill No. 2 - First Appropriation Act, 2000-01 - continued

Deputy Chair: We will now proceed to Bill No. 2, First Appropriation Act, 2000-01, and resume general debate on Health and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chair, last evening Yukoners had the pleasure of listening to the Member for Klondike question open custody caregiving in the Yukon and specifically in the Dawson area of Bear Creek. The interested family and constituents of the member opposite provide a tremendous service to the community of Dawson and to the Department of Health and Social Services. The interested family currently runs an open custody care facility at Ancient Voices. This is the only location that has been designated as an open custody. I will discuss open custody a bit later.

The family is still interested in being designated as open custody caregivers at their Bear Creek location - that is despite the alarm the Member for Klondike has created. This alarm has caused confusion among the residents of Bear Creek and the member has, in fact, created neighbourhood tension where it did not exist before. With his air of alarm, the member opposite has single-handedly jeopardized a service provided by this family. This family likes to provide this service.

I will continue to set the record straight to Yukoners and for the member opposite. I hope Yukoners listen to the facts from their MLAs; I hope they question their MLAs for the truth. Yukoners deserve to have the facts.

I mentioned that I would discuss open custody. While many Yukoners are concerned about public safety, public safety is protected in many ways with the open custody program. For example, the process begins at court. When youth court sentences young offenders for criminal or territorial offences, it has the option of choosing open custody. When the court chooses open custody, the trained professionals from the department determine open custody placement. If the placement means the community will be at risk of violence, then the young person will be placed in the special open custody program at the young offenders facility here in Whitehorse.

This aspect of the program was developed in order to provide closer monitoring of open custody youth with a history of violent behaviour.

Now, I would like to explain what that means, for a young offender to be put in an open custody placement. The Yukon has open custody, as caregiver homes, which are private homes. There are no paid staff in the home. The family is paid a per diem for each day the young offender spends in the home. The maximum number of youth placed at the home at any one time is two. So, really, the youth is supervised for 24 hours.

There are many things that we could talk about, but I will forego my discussion at this point and come back to it later.

Deputy Chair: Is there any further general debate on Health and Social Services?

We will now proceed to departments.

On Policy, Planning and Administration

Deputy Chair: Are there any questions on the allotments?

Policy, Planning and Administration in the amount of $3,672,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins: Can we have some breakdown of this line item?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: The 2.5 increase in the funding for the youth services unit from the revised 1999-2000 budget of $3,131,000 - this is an increase. Part of it is due to the increase for personnel - $17,000, and a $17,000 increase due to miscellaneous price increases. In other, there is an increase of $60,000 and a $95,000 increase in contracts for YCJA bridging programs. There's a decrease in our contracts of $29,000 and a decrease in the supplies and program materials. In the transfers, there is no change.

Mr. Jenkins: YCJA - what does that cover?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Youth justice. The youth justice of the federal Department of Justice is providing bridge funding to assist with the start-up costs required to implement the new features of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. We plan to use the funds for policy and program development review of existing program manuals, staff training and orientation and the work with the Yukon's community justice committees to develop common policies and procedures for their role under the new act. This money is fully recoverable.

Mr. Jenkins: Are there any funds left in there to give the minister an understanding of the open custody situation? I would hope that there would be.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chair, there is always money for learning.

Youth Services in the amount of $3,208,000 agreed to

Deputy Chair: Are there any questions on the allotments?

Family and Children's Services in the amount of $20,820,000 agreed to

Deputy Chair: Are there any questions on statistics?

On Social Services

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, where is the initiative to oversee the Alberta people who are coming in to have a look at our alcohol and drug services? Where's that contained?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chair, that would come out of the alcohol and drug services for $2,082,000.

Mr. Jenkins: Do we have a ballpark total budget for this initiative, Mr. Chair? Out of that $2-million fund, I don't know what the total amount is that's being allocated to this new initiative for the review, but perhaps the minister could help us with a total cost, including disbursements?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chair, in the range of $15,000 to $20,000.

Mr. Jenkins: And that includes, Mr. Chair, all the disbursements, or is that just the contract price?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chair, we're only paying for the travel, hotel and possibly some salary arrears. There's no contract price on this arrangement. This is sort of being done as, I guess you'd call it a gift.

Program Management in the amount of $316,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, what are we anticipating in this regard? Are we looking at increase in social assistance throughout the Yukon flatlined, or what are we projecting?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chair, the trend at the present moment is a downward slide - in other words, our costs are going down and that comes from the last budget, compared to the last budget, so we are moving downward with our support.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, is there any difference between rural Yukon and Whitehorse with respect to the downward trend? Is there anything that comes to the surface as being abnormal and, if so, what is it?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chair, it would appear that it is similar for both the rural and the urban area. There is no big issue in one area or the other. They are quite compatible with each other. If the member opposite would like some written response, we are able to do that as well.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, yes, please, if you could send that over.

Social Assistance Services in the amount of $10,200,000 agreed to

Deputy Chair: Are there any questions on the statistics?

Are there any questions on the supplementary information?

On Health Services

Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister just advise where we are at with managing the accounts receivable from Indian and Northern Affairs?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chair, I just want to answer a question; it's not on this line but can I answer it now or do I wait until the line - it's in Social Services; does it matter?

This is an issue that I think the member opposite - I have to congratulate him for being vigilant about it, because I believe that the past year's concern about it has brought action. I'd like to thank the member opposite for being vigilant about this particular area.

There has been progress in the area and there has been monies paid out that have responded to the need of where this whole issue is at. Of course, historically, DIAND has refused to pay for the actual average cost of services for Health and Social Services. This has resulted in a large, outstanding invoice owing to the Yukon government, now at $24.7 million for the prior seven fiscal years. The largest share of the DIAND bill is $15.4 million for child welfare services. Services to status First Nations at the Thomson Centre now total about $6.3 million. The remaining $3 million are for services relating to women's shelters, social assistance and the McDonald Lodge and homecare.

Health and Social Services is making progress toward reducing the amount owing to the Yukon government for services provided to our First Nations. Payments of $24 million have been received over the last year and a half from DIAND toward child welfare, and the two governments are close to a formal agreement on the payment of these services.

So, for the member opposite, we are very close to an agreement and, hopefully, we can, in the fall, possibly make a further announcement.

Mr. Jenkins: Is this a Liberal "very close", or is this a business deal "very close"? Just how does the minister define "close"?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: If I was a very arrogant person, I probably could say it was a Liberal closeness, but I'm not. It's a business close, and it will be coming to Cabinet, once we have reached that final line, and then it will be disbursed for public information.

So, I'm being very upfront and honest about it. We're very pleased about where we're at at this point.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, that raises a little bit of a concern. It has to come to Cabinet. That would suggest to me, Mr. Chair, that there has to be a write-off, or a reduction, or we have to eat some of this $24.7 million outstanding. Is that the reason for it having to go to Cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Anything to do with the government has to go to Cabinet - any agreements. It doesn't matter what they are, and that's standard practice.

Mr. Jenkins: I'm not aware of any previous accounts receivable going to Cabinet, unless there was a write-off or a reduction in the amount of the receivables. I'd suggest to the minister that this must be the case, Mr. Chair, and the Government of Yukon is not going to be receiving the full amount.

Now, if we don't want to tip our hand and give a heads-up to Indian and Northern Affairs, I can leave this matter alone, if that's the case. The minister only has to nod, and we can move on, because I don't want to disturb something that may or may not come to fruition.

Usually when it goes to Cabinet it means that there has to be writedown of the total amount from the total amount that was received, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chair, the Member for Klondike is correct about two of the issues. It is rather sensitive at this point but also, with entering into any contractual arrangement, it has to go to Cabinet. There has been no formal arrangement and this would be the first time that this type of arrangement would be made. It will also give us retribution for the past and also will set the stage for the future. That's why it has to go to Cabinet.

Mr. Jenkins: I'd be more concerned if we could come to some agreement for past receivables and how we're going to deal with a timely payment in the future, given the tremendous sum that we have. I mentioned the amount earlier, Mr. Chair. This is the biggest department in the Government of Yukon and, including capital, it's some $125 million a year. If we add in the receivables, we're up to just about $150 million a year, if you take normal accounting practices into consideration. And that makes it, by and large, just about half again bigger than the next department.

Mr. Chair, have we come to arrangements with Indian Affairs with respect to how they're going to be paying in the future? Is this the contract that is coming before Cabinet? There must be two parts to it - how we're going to deal with the arrears, and how we're going to move forward. Now, on the moving forward initiative, is Indian Affairs receiving a cut rate for their services from what anybody else would receive, or are they paying the full shot as anybody else would?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: The Member for Klondike is correct. The whole point of going through this is to provide certainty and the second part of it is to clear, as I call it, the deck from the past. That's why there's sensitivity around it. Since we haven't concluded the arrangement, but we're kind of close, it's important that we not spend a lot of time trying to negotiate it here. I can rest assured that the member opposite had a lot to do with where we're at now, so I think that's very important.

Program Management in the amount of $347,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins: It would probably be a prudent time to ask a question. Where is the department heading overall in all of these categories - community health and on up and down? Is the trend for expenditures and costs rising, which I am sure it is?

What can we anticipate this fall in the supplementary budget to address the additional costs that we're going to incur in all these categories? Consistently, Health and Social Services has always been over budget and we have to bring back some pretty sizable supplementaries. What are we anticipating this year, because they are mostly directly attributable to this area in the budget?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: The Member for Klondike, again, has put his finger on a very sensitive issue in our health care programming and, as I've shared earlier, there are problems throughout the nation, and there are problems here, too. Right at this point, we seem to be all right, but there's always the unexpected. Medevac costs have risen right across the territory. The hospital care costs of some of our major accidents for victims from the Yukon have gone up quite dramatically also, so those are unexpected costs, and it's pretty hard to forecast.

Obviously, if they are over, we will be back for supplementary.

Community Health in the amount of $6,664,000 agreed to

Deputy Chair: Are there any questions on the allotments?

Are there any questions on statistics?

Are there any questions on the supplementary information?

Deputy Chair: Is there any general debate?

On Program Management

Deputy Chair:Are there any questions on the allotments?

Are there any questions on recoveries and revenues?

Are there any questions on transfer payments?

Regional Services in the amount of $4,311,000 agreed to

Deputy Chair: We will now move into Health and Social Services capital budget.

On Capital Expenditures

Mr. Jenkins: On these last two items, Mr. Chair, I hope the minister recognizes that they are being cleared and approved and I look forward to some announcement from his department as to their purchase.

Yukon Hospital Corporation - CT Scan in the amount of $1,000,000 agreed to

Deputy Chair: Are there any questions on transfer payments?

Capital Expenditures for the Department of Health and Social Services in the amount of $10,195,000 agreed to

Department of Renewable Resources - continued

Deputy Chair: We will now proceed to Renewable Resources, general debate. Is there any further general debate on Renewable Resources?

Mr. Jenkins: Renewable Resources - just where are we at with the establishment of the ecoregions and setting land quantum in this regard? I understand there's a new initiative underway, after the Fishing Branch, for a new region that's larger than the Fishing Branch. It has currently just started and it's within the department. Just where are we at with this process and what's happening?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, we are currently, as I had indicated in questioning before to the hon. Member for Kluane that the Yukon protected areas strategy, especially goal one areas, are under review. The whole process is under review, and during that time, there will be no new goal one areas established. That is what was committed to during the review of the YPAS goal one process.

Mr. Jenkins: Have we determined total Yukon land quantum for this initiative, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, no, we haven't.

Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister advise the House as to what kind of a timeline and time frames this process is at before we come to that conclusion, for land quantum, number one, and to move forward in the protected areas strategy?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, that's going to be very difficult to determine at this time. The YPAS process is ongoing; there are 23 equal regions. We are attempting to find locations in the territory where we can group ecoregions within one protected area zone. As the member opposite well knows, there are areas where there are no final land claims determined and we cannot be identifying any specific areas within those locations until land claims have been completed.

Mr. Fairclough: The Premier has stated that the protected areas strategy didn't work and there was a creation of the Fishing Branch under that strategy, which many Yukoners feel is a very good one, especially the people of Old Crow. Now, does the minister share the same views as the Premier on this; that it doesn't work?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I would agree with the member opposite. The Fishing Branch is a very good one. The problem that arose out of the Fishing Branch, though, is that the process was shrunk to a considerable less time than was identified in how you establish a protected area.

What happened was that the full consultative process was not followed as a result of that. Although I would agree with the member that Fishing Branch is an incredibly beautiful area, it's an area that does fall within the parameters of protected areas, and a very important ecoregion is captured as a result of that area. So, it's really as a result of the Fishing Branch exercise that we are now going into the review of the process under a goal one determination.

Mr. Fairclough: The minister disagrees with the Premier's view on this particular issue. Fishing Branch has been created and management is being put together on this. He says that the time was shortened. Now that a review is taking place, does he anticipate a longer period of time in creating protected areas?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Over the two years that the YPAS was being created, where there was a tremendous exercise of consultation with interest groups, with industry, with governments, with the public at large, in communities large and small, the consultation that went on finally came in the presentation that was made to government, along with an implementation document. This is to do it right, due to the sensitive nature of the protected areas strategy, and recognizing the diverse partnerships within the advisory group - that put together the strategy - the diverse interests, the sensitivities, awareness, was that, accompanying the strategy, was an implementation packet.

Things are going to succeed if we want to retain the full partnership that was on the advisory committee.

The agreement was that the government was warned. They were told, here it is, but follow it. If you don't, there's going to be consequences to pay. I do agree with the Premier that Fishing Branch is a beautiful area, there are no two ways about it. The thing is that the process of implementation is about 18 months. What happened with Fishing Branch was that it was seven or eight months that that was determined. It just doesn't allow adequate time to have Yukoners made aware of what the area, under a goal one protected area, is going to be - the full plan, the full impact, the full buy-in from all partners, the total awareness of what this protected area is being protected for, and agreement. That consultation didn't occur completely.

As a consequence, we had partners that were involved in the protected area strategy fall away. The agreement that this government has come to is that we would review the process. Invite everybody back and review the process of implementation on goal ones. Now that we have everybody committed to that, the department has been advised to get the steering committee up to prepare option papers. What the option papers are, are a review of what the advisory committee should be focusing on when it looks at the implementation aspect of the YPAS. That will happen this fall. That's where we are.

Mr. Fairclough: We probably could have a long debate on this particular issue. We feel that it is a very good strategy and the public had participated very well in putting this together. I'm anxious to see how big a difference the next strategy is, coming out under the Liberal government. Can the minister tell us how many protected areas he feels that he would accomplish under his term in office?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I am going to agree wholeheartedly with the member opposite, Mr. Chair, in that it is a great strategy. The strategy itself is not what's under review. I think that has to be made very clear; it's not the strategy. The strategy has been lauded by organizations across the country as one of the better ones that has come across. There was a tremendous amount of work that went into that by the government, by the public and by all the interests that I had mentioned before.

The problem is how it was implemented and the commitment that was made to the strategy by all the parties would have held firm, had the implementation been followed; had the timelines identified in the implementation of goal one protected area been followed. Then we wouldn't have had the problem we have. How many protected areas are we going to have within the next while? That's going to be very hard to say, because as this government is committed to settling the land claims, that will open up the prospects of new protected areas.

The department is aware, as I'm sure the member across the way is aware, that there are key areas of interest in the La Biche area in the southeast Yukon for instance - very unique habitat types in there, but again, we have to wait for land claims in that area before we can proceed.

Mr. McRobb: Just a quick question, Mr. Chair. Last week, I noticed a press release from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society that related to the lack of consultation before the oil and gas leases were sought. Can the minister explain to us what's happening with that, especially in regard to the timeline of late July?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: The actual call for nominations on the area identified within the news article hasn't happened. It is anticipated that, hopefully, maybe toward the end of July, that will be occurring. But what is happening is the consultation with the principals, namely the First Nations affected, in northeast Yukon.

So, that will occur, and when that's done, there will be a call for nominations.

Mr. McRobb: Okay, Mr. Chair, we did discuss this in Question Period a few weeks back. At that time, the government had sent a letter out to the Vuntut Gwitchin and possibly some other stakeholders, and I don't believe they had heard anything back in regard to that letter and this initiative.

Can the minister indicate if they've heard anything back from the Vuntut Gwitchin or anybody else in this consultation process?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Actually, these questions, with respect to oil and gas reserves up in northeast Yukon, were reviewed and presented during the Economic Development budget review. So, that type of correspondence that you've just mentioned was issued, or written, by the Premier. The response would go back to the Premier. So, I wouldn't be privy to that information, at this point, anyway.

Mr. McRobb: You know, once again, it looks like Economic Development is leading the way for Renewable Resources. I'm asking the minister here. I know he didn't get up in Economic Development debate. I'm just asking him, can he provide us with any understanding as to what they've heard back, at least at this point, in regard to the consultation with the people about these oil and gas leases?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, as I understand the Premier, that is an Economic Development question, but I'll let the member opposite know that there has been correspondence sent to the First Nations and the Premier hasn't heard back yet.

Deputy Chair: Is there any further general debate on Renewable Resources?

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, we just created one new park, the Tombstone Park. Are there any more initiatives in this area being considered within the government?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair - the member could just nod - is this the creation of a new park, an additional park? Any more? Not at this particular time. I would believe that, as we proceed through the protected areas strategy in the next several years, the next 10 years, if the member chooses, out of that process it's possible that, under goal one protected areas, there may be additional parks created but, on the burner at this time, no.

Mr. Jenkins: The other question that begs an answer is this: what is the total land mass of Yukon that we're going to eventually protect, either through the protected areas strategy or by way of territorial parks? Have we come to any conclusion in this regard yet, Mr. Chair and, if we haven't, when is it going to be decided?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, no, we haven't. It's very difficult, as I'm sure the member can understand and appreciate. It's very difficult when you're looking at goal one areas, when you're protecting unique features of the territory in its 23 ecoregions, that some of the areas are going to be quite small, like the Coal River Springs, and some places are going to be a little bit larger, like the Fishing Branch. So, it's nigh on impossible to determine the land quantum, when all is said and done.

Mr. Jenkins: One of the other initiatives was the Yellowstone-to-Yukon initiative to create a whole park through that entire corridor, right here into the Yukon. Has that reared its head again and, if so, where is it at?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I am not aware. In all seriousness, though, that yes, you're right. There was a proposal to create protected areas and parks from Yellowstone up into Yukon, and connecting corridors, for the safe movement and protection of wildlife. The department has just informed me that it's still there. The proposal is still there, but is very, very low key, or very low priority, within the branch at this time.

Mr. Jenkins: One of the other concerns that is constantly raised is the position that the department takes with respect to development initiatives, mining initiatives, or anything under resource extraction.

Is there any political direction being provided to the department as to what position to take with respect to any resource extraction permit or application? Is there any message conveyed to the department in this regard, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: No.

Mr. Jenkins: Where does the department take its initiative from, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I guess, with respect to direction, rather than political, the instruction would be to work in a balanced way.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Yes, the direction being that the approach to environmental protection is of a balanced nature.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, work in a balanced way. Now, those are very nice words, but usually the department, when it attends any of these hearings of initiatives for resource extraction, they are very much in the negative as to their position, and it takes more than work in a balanced way. I guess we'll call that the Liberal way - it means sit on the fence, don't make a decision one way or the other. But it would appear, Mr. Chair, that the department, somewhere, has made a decision, and they're, in most cases, coming out opposed to any resource extraction initiative.

Now, this mandate has to flow from somewhere, and it has to be determined somewhere, from a policy of some sort, and policies are political initiatives.

Is there a policy in place that spells out how the department is to respond to any of these resource extraction initiatives?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I beg to differ with the member opposite. The department presents the concerns and issues with respect to safeguarding the environment - that's their charge. They're there to make presentations in a balanced fashion, not opposing the development of mining, not opposing extraction of oil or gas.

As a matter of fact, and the Member for Watson Lake would be interested in hearing this, it was the department that identified the fibre available in very critical caribou habitat in the Rancheria area. It was the department that provided that fibre and presented it to the authority that can allocate the permit.

So, no, not at all is the Department of Renewable Resources opposed to development. The balance: it's their charge to present the balance aspect with respect to environmental concerns and, as the member opposite had alluded to in his summary of the supplementary, to make sure and ensure that we do have a beautiful territory.

Mr. Jenkins: I'd like to thank the minister for his response. Well, the bottom line is that we all recognize that the department does a lot of very good and excellent work; that's not on the table for discussion. What I want to know, Mr. Chair, is there any internal policy spelling out how the department is to respond to resource extraction initiatives? Is there a policy?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, the department makes every attempt to find the balance in respect to other interests that are the responsibility of government: socio-economic, economic development, land claim issues, development, tourism, C&TS, heritage. I mean, when the department is looking at resource extraction, it considers these in light of the government it is working for.

Mr. Jenkins: The minister has failed to answer the question. The question is, does the department have a policy in this regard and, if it does, can we have a copy of it?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I have just been presented a departmental objective and, within the objective it states, "The managing of Renewable Resources in a manner that promotes integration with other sectors such as Economic Development so that optimum benefits be derived for all Yukon people."

I am more than willing to share this piece of paper with the member opposite.

Deputy Chair: Is there any further general debate on Renewable Resources? We will now proceed line by line.

On Corporate Services

Deputy Chair: Are there any questions on the allotments? Are there any questions on the statistics?

Corporate Services in the amount of $1,517,000 agreed to

Unanimous consent re: Department of Renewable Resources budget

Mr. Fentie: I would ask for unanimous consent in this House, now that we're at this stage, to simply clear the department in its entirety, both O&M and capital.

Deputy Chair: Is there unanimous consent to clear the entire Renewable Resources capital and O&M budget?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Deputy Chair: Unanimous consent has been granted.

We'll now go clause by clause.

On Schedule A

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 2 out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Ms. Tucker: Mr. Chair, I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Motion agreed to

Speaker resumes the Chair

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

May the House have a report from the Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Kent: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 3, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 2000-01, and directed me to report it without amendment.

The Committee has also considered Bill No. 2, entitled First Appropriation Act, 2000-01, and directed me to report it without amendment.

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

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: I declare the report carried.

Government bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I move that Bill No. 2, entitled First Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 2, entitled First Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now read a third time and do pass.

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker: Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker: Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Agree

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Agree.

Ms. Tucker: Agree.

Mr. Kent: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Ms. Netro: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Disagree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 13 yea, one nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 2 agreed to

Speaker: I declare the motion carried and that Bill No. 2 has passed this House.

Bill No. 3: Third Reading

Clerk: Third reading. Bill No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 3, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 3, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now read a third time and do pass. Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker: Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker: Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Agree.

Ms. Tucker: Agree.

Mr. Kent: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough: Disagree.

Mr. Keenan: Disagree.

Mr. McRobb: Disagree.

Mr. Fentie: Disagree.

Ms. Netro: Disagree.

Mr. Jenkins: Disagree.

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

Speaker: The yeas have it.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 3 agreed to

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 3 has passed this House.

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 enters the Chamber, announced by the Sergeant-at-Arms

ASSENT TO BILLS

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, 2000-01; Second Appropriation Act, 2000-01.

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

Commissioner leaves the Chamber

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

Special adjournment motion

Ms. Tucker: 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 Premier, 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 Premier, 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.

Motion agreed to

Ms. Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker: This House now stands adjourned.

The House adjourned at 4:05 p.m.

The following Legislative Returns were tabled July 13, 2000:

00-1-8

Land claim and implementation recoverable funding: list of projects by department (Duncan)

Oral, Hansard, p. 618

00-1-9

Oil and gas exploration in north Yukon: status of arrangements with Anderson Exploration (Duncan)

Oral, Hansard, p. 636

00-1-10

Offshore jurisdictional matters: initiatives pursued (Duncan)

Oral, Hansard, p. 638