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.

TRIBUTES

Mrs. Peter:   I rise today with a very proud heart to pay tribute to members of my community of Old Crow, who worked together collectively to secure the safety of RCMP Constable David Wallace. As everyone knows, Constable Wallace spent 48 hours alone in the bush this past weekend before search and rescue people found him on Sunday.

It has always been my community’s attitude that when people come to our community they are in our care. We are responsible for them. That is why everyone in our community was mobilized in this effort.

We also recognized that there was only one remaining member at the RCMP detachment and he had to stay there on duty. They needed our help.

Thirty-three volunteers searched around the clock. Elders who were not out on the land held a vigil in the community by the riverbank and offered prayers. Others prepared food and dropped it off at the local detachment to feed the people who were out searching.

There was a community feast organized in acknowledgement of all the people’s help.

Gwitchin people in Whitehorse kept in touch with the people in the community to offer help if they needed it.

Elsie Hume, Bev Bingham and Ethel Tizya took it upon themselves to shop for groceries in Whitehorse and ship them home in time for the feast.

Chief Joe Linklater was in Whitehorse for leadership meetings but was ready to return at a moment’s notice if they needed him. And at this time, I would ask the House to help me acknowledge Chief Joe Linklater who is with us in the gallery today.

Applause

Mrs. Peter:   Chief Joe Linklater also kept me apprised of the extent of the efforts at home and the progress that was being made. Corporal Brown, the detachment commander, told me that words couldn’t express the gratitude the RCMP feel toward the community for their unselfishness. Deputy Chief William Josie expressed it best when he said that the RCMP took care of our grandfathers and grandmothers and today the Old Crow people took care of the RCMP. Prayers of the community were answered, thankfully, when Constable Wallace was found 55 hours after he took to the Porcupine River, and this turned out to be a rescue mission, not a recovery mission. Constable Wallace is expected to make full recovery. This is largely due to the efforts of Old Crow.

Mahsi’cho. You are all heroes.

Thank you.

Speaker:   Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   I have for tabling the 2000-01 annual report of the Yukon Geographical Place Names Board.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   I have for tabling the 2000-01 annual report for the Motor Transport Board, as well as a legislative return in response to a question from the Member for Kluane regarding the rural roads upgrading projects.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   I have for filing a report prepared by Ted Hughes, Queen’s Counsel, at the request of the president and chief executive officer of the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board pertaining to a statement made on April 17, 2002, in the Yukon Legislative Assembly, a report dated May 23, 2002.

Speaker:   Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Roberts:   Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that treatment and counselling services for Yukon youth with alcohol and drug addictions are inadequate, particularly in rural Yukon; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to consult with Yukon communities in a meaningful way to start developing adequate services for our Yukon youth.

Mr. McLarnon:   Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) there are service improvement programs that are operating successfully in most Canadian jurisdictions and that these programs save their respective governments millions of dollars a year in savings because of the good suggestions of civil servants, and

(2) taxpayer dollars should be used wisely; and

THAT this House urges the government to examine employee suggestion programs in other jurisdictions and find ways to implement such programs in the Yukon government.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) current legislation in the Yukon does not adequately protect victims of domestic violence;

(2) the government should examine legislative initiatives recently taken in other Canadian jurisdictions to assist victims of domestic violence; and

(3) the government should then prepare a comprehensive discussion paper for use in public consultations on developing new legislation that will provide a wider range of options in responding to domestic violence.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a ministerial statement?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the Premier finally admitted that there is no economic development agreement forthcoming from the federal government. I guess, Mr. Speaker, it’s no longer an asset to have Paul Martin in her corner.

The Premier also suggested that the events of September 11 had something to do with the demise of the EDA.

Can the Premier explain what the September 11 tragedy has to do with her failure to negotiate an economic development agreement with her Ottawa allies?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   First of all, what I indicated to the member opposite yesterday is that there is economic development funding within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is proposal based. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development restated that when he was here recently.

The second point I made was that there are a number of budget pressures that the federal government has faced since we began these discussions and since Finance Minister Paul Martin hadn’t made the initial commitment in a budget. Events have changed, including the greater emphasis by Canada on border and security issues, which is a result of the tragic events of September 11.

The fact is that the Government of Yukon continues to pursue, with the Government of Canada, additional funding for economic development for the Yukon, both within DIAND and their existing economic development funds as well as access to the western diversification fund. It’s the same answer I’ve given the member opposite since he first asked this question back in April and some months ago. I continue to answer the member’s question.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister, the Premier, isn’t answering the questions, and we get the same old story, "The Yukon government is broke; so is the federal government." The bottom line is that the EDA is gone. The Premier has let it die from neglect. She starved it; she neglected it, Mr. Speaker. She abandoned it on the doorsteps. What’s the real story of this Liberal Party, anyway? The Liberal Premier says the territory should be going after an economic development agreement. We all know that. Now, our Liberal MP says he’s pursuing a separate northern accord with the three territories. I wonder what the Liberal senator has to say.

Can the Premier tell us what strategies her colleagues in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have been using to get major economic development money from Ottawa and when she intends to adopt some of those clearly successful strategies?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   The fact of the matter, and the answer to the member opposite’s question, is that economic development funding from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is proposal driven. The minister has stated that quite clearly. The Yukon government has successfully worked with others in submitting proposals to that. An example of that is recent funding for oil and gas, for example, with CYFN — we supported that proposal. We have done this successfully. We will continue to be successful.

A separate, special northern economic development agreement appears to be, in light of funding pressures, out of reach. In that avenue, we can present savings to the Government of Canada by working through the western diversification fund, and that’s what all three northern territories are doing in addition to the DIAND funding.

Mr. Fairclough:   Obviously, there’s a lack of leadership on behalf of the Liberal government. They let the EDA die, and we all know that. The Premier keeps introducing this red herring of trying to get a ticket into the western diversification fund. Next week, the Premier may well get the go-ahead from the western premiers one more time.

The question: what will the Premier do if the Yukon does get into the western diversification fund? Nunavut has a smaller population; it gets much more federal money per capita, and the Northwest Territories always outperforms the Yukon in getting Ottawa to open its wallets.

What new steps will the Premier take in lobbying the federal government so that we don’t have to settle for some small percentage of the western diversification money, instead of having our real needs of economic development recognized?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I have to challenge the leader of the official opposition’s facts. First of all, the Yukon led the three northern territories in even getting a formula financing agreement in 1985. The Yukon led that. The Yukon and Yukon officials led the three territories in resolving the outstanding dispute that netted $42 million to the Government of Yukon. The fact is that Yukon and Yukon officials led that dispute — nobody else. It wasn’t N.W.T. and it wasn’t Nunavut. The Yukon did that. The Yukon did that for all three.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, it was this Liberal government that resolved that outstanding dispute with the Government of Canada and, yes, with Paul Martin. The member only has to check the facts on that.

With regard to economic development, this government will continue, as we have done for the last two years, working on all kinds of economic development projects, which are clearly netting results, Mr. Speaker. One only has to drive the highway and see the people at work.

Question re:  Education Act review

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

Another day, another Liberal flip-flop. The Education Act amendments are being withdrawn. The Education Act secretariat is being disbanded, but the Grey Mountain School is back by popular demand in two Liberal ridings.

The minister says that the public wanted more time to review the amendments. The reality is that the public didn’t want these Liberal amendments at all.

Now that she has disbanded the secretariat, what process is the minister putting into place to facilitate a real review of the Education Act itself?

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   I am somewhat dismayed by the cavalier disregard for the people who have just spent years reviewing the act. The information that I have received back from the parties has been, by and large, quite positive. They have asked for more time to look at the amendments and the implications of those amendments. They have asked for more time and I have been pleased to grant more time.

Mrs. Peter:   The official opposition had asked for that time also. The secretariat has an allocation of $200,000 in the 2002-03 capital budget, which includes a generous patronage position for a former Liberal party leader. Now that the minister has admitted that the Education Act review was a failure, does she intend to keep two deputy ministers on the job in her department?

Hon. Ms. Tucker:  The Education Act amendments review has been a success because it has encouraged dialogue in this territory that was sadly lacking. The feedback that the minister has received is, by and large, in support of these comments by many members of the Yukon public.

What is interesting is that a week ago the opposition was demanding the deferral of the amendments. They are sitting there talking about all the time and the money that has been spent. The minister has actually been out listening to the stakeholders and going from community to community and listening to what was being said. My job as the minister and as an MLA is to listen, and I have done that. These amendments have some very good aspects to them and I am expecting comments from the stakeholders in the immediate future.

Mrs. Peter:   The rebuilding of the Grey Mountain School has been controversial for some time. The school is a success. This success is not about bricks or mortar; it’s about the quality of education for our children. What steps is the minister taking to ensure that all Yukon schools have that same quality of education found at Grey Mountain School?

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Education is about children, and it is about communities, and I think the challenge for all Yukoners is to support and contribute to a productive education system, and I’m not just looking at Grey Mountain School; I’m looking throughout the territory. Part of the role of the amendments to the act is to try to get a better education in the Yukon for children, and that’s what we’re going to do.

Question re:  Nurses in communities, staffing vacancies

Mr. Fentie:   My question today is for the Minister of Health and Social Services.

The minister must be aware of the fact that in communities like Watson Lake, there is a great deal of concern about the pending and critical shortage of registered nurses, and that shortage is looming quickly. At the same time, I’ve been advised that in the community of Dawson City, the nursing station will not be accepting any in-patient care because of community nursing’s unwillingness to staff the nursing station adequately enough to support this service.

While health care aides can provide assistance, the shortage of RNs is compounding the situation, because it is registered nurses who train the health care aides. Can the minister advise the House what she and her government are doing to address this critical shortage of registered nurses in rural Yukon?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is not a pending shortage of nurses in the world. It’s here and it’s now, and it’s going to get worse. Those are the words from the chair of the Yukon Advisory Committee on Nursing, who was advising us on good ways — good, practical ways — to recruit and, what’s more important, retain the nurses that we have here in the Yukon Territory.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite makes a comment about not being able to deliver in-patient care at the Dawson nursing station. First of all, to be absolutely clear, it’s not a nursing station, it’s a health centre, and we haven’t been delivering in-patient care since 1999, when the doctors there withdrew their services. And that, despite the comments from the Member for Klondike, is the way we have been delivering services in Dawson City since 1999. Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the Yukon Advisory Committee on Nursing to come up with practical ways to train nursing professionals such as registered nurses and to look at other related issues — health professionals such as LPNs and nursing home attendants and other areas where there needs to be support by nurses within the Yukon Territory.

Speaker:   Conclusion please.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Some of those nurses do train; that is true.

Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, I’m not here to have a frivolous argument with the minister about this issue. Yukon people are the concern here. They are very, very worried that not only do they realize there is a shortage, they are concerned that that shortage is going to be ever increasing because of the lack of this government’s willingness to address recruitment and retention in this area. Now, the minister has just recited a litany of wonderful things that she implies her government is doing, but it’s not working because the shortage is increasing. Can the minister advise the House why she is relying on medevacs, for instance, to provide medical services to rural Yukon rather than developing a comprehensive program to recruit and retain registered nurses for rural Yukon? That’s the fact here.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   First of all, let’s go through some of the points made by the member opposite.

Yes, this is a very serious issue. This is how we deliver our health care — through nurse practitioners in most of our rural areas — and there is a shortage in the Yukon Territory. It has been getting worse over the years and it will get worse in the future. It is a problem, it is here, and it is now.

It’s my responsibility as the Minister of Health to look at those issues seriously, and that’s what I’m doing, with the good advice of the Yukon Advisory Committee on Nursing. They are giving us good ways to bring in more nurses but, what’s more important, to retain the nurses that we have. This is very serious.

Some of the ways we are doing that is by training nurse practitioners or bringing nurses’ skills up at the Watson Lake hospital. That’s what we’re doing. We’re training in the Yukon Territory. There are ways that we can improve our recruitment and retention strategies, and we are doing that because it is very important.

Mr. Fentie:   Well, we’re very pleased that the minister realizes that this is a serious issue. What the minister hasn’t done is provide this House and, indeed, the Yukon public with the concrete facts of what it is she and her government are doing to address the issue.

Now, let’s look at another situation that’s going to further compound this very serious matter. The opening of the Copper Ridge Place extended care facility is only going to increase this government’s need to recruit and retain registered nurses.

Can the minister, beyond the rhetoric, please explain to this House what concrete steps she and her government are taking now to address recruitment and retention of registered nurses in the territory?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   There are a number of points that the member opposite has tried to make. One of the points is that there is a perception by Yukoners — particularly the members across the floor — that we are doing nothing to recruit and retain nurses in the Yukon Territory. The members opposite, of course, have fostered that perception. That is a problem. It is a problem because people believe, probably because some of the statements made by the members opposite, that we aren’t doing anything. Well, we certainly are doing something. The first and most important thing was we went to our nurses in the Yukon Territory and asked them how we can retain and recruit nurses. How do we do it? Give us some practical suggestions. This committee, which is also made up of union members as well as a number of other different groups, is coming up some really good suggestions. That is what we are doing.

The other problem is that perhaps people don’t know what we are doing and that is the perception that the member opposite is talking about and he is right. We haven’t been as good as we could be about telling Yukoners that we are very much aware of the problem. I thank the member opposite for giving me the opportunity today to tell Yukoners how important this issue is to us and how we are working with nurses to solve it. As for the information about the nurses who are working up at Copper Ridge Place, the member opposite needs to know that the vast majority of workers up at Copper Ridge Place, the new extended care facility, are not registered nurses.

Speaker:   Conclusion please.

Question re:   Canada Winter Games, hosting of

Mr. McRobb:   I want to question this government’s commitment to the Canada Winter Games and follow up to our discussion late yesterday afternoon. We all know that tomorrow is the big day when we expect big daddy federal government to announce Whitehorse as the successful bidder for the Games along with some $20 million in Games funding. Hosting the Games will require more facilities in both Whitehorse and neighbouring communities such as Haines Junction, Carmacks, Teslin and Carcross where some events can hopefully be held. Will the minister commit now to working with these communities with respect to their recreation facility needs so that this marvellous opportunity is not lost?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   I’m aghast that the member would question this government’s commitment to the Canada Games. This is something we have been fighting hard for, for the past two years. As I indicated to the member yesterday, we are already aware that discussions are happening with neighbouring communities about hockey practice, perhaps some hockey games. It will be the responsibility of the host committee to continue those discussions with the neighbouring communities.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, if the minister is aghast, I would invite her to reflect back on Hansard where she will discover that the previous NDP government had the vision years ago to start the Canada Games fund with millions of dollars.

I want to question the minister on another aspect coming from our discussion yesterday. I was quite amazed, Mr. Speaker, to discover that upgrades to recreation facilities in communities only apply to existing structures. This could hurt many of the neighbouring communities that want new facilities. The excuse the minister gave — that it’s not in the bid — does not wash, Mr. Speaker. The Yukon government has an over-arching responsibility to respond to the recreation needs of Yukoners.

Speaker:   Question please.

Mr. McRobb:   Can the minister commit to ensuring a more cohesive approach with respect to new recreation facilities in our communities?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   This government’s commitment to the Canada Games is clear. This government’s commitment to recreation in Yukon communities is also clear. In Tagish, we committed $100,000 in the 2002-03 capital budget toward the completion of phase 3 of the Tagish community hall. The Marsh Lake community would like a community hall; a working group is working on that. In Carcross, the planning process for a recreation facility is underway.

My department remains committed to community recreation.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, the only thing clear is that this Liberal government only cares about itself. It doesn’t care about the athletes, Mr. Speaker, and I was astounded yesterday to discover that sport and recreation in this budget is suffering a 24-percent reduction. That is outrageous, given that Canada Winter Games are only a few years away.

Now, the minister’s excuse was that the money was adequate to meet the initial planning stages for the Canada Games. Mr. Speaker, this ignores the fact that our athletes need time to develop their skills in order to compete. We are hosting these Games. We want our athletes to do well in the medals. It takes money at this stage to develop athleticism in the Yukon. Can the minister undertake to increase the funding to an appropriate level and include it in the supplementary budget expected in the fall?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   As the Member for Kluane well knows, the 24-percent reduction in sport and recreation funding is because there is no Arctic Winter Games in the coming year. That funding is required in alternate years, as the member knows very well. This government remains committed to community recreation. It remains committed to our Yukon athletes who perform very well and who I expect will continue to do so.

Question re:  Grey Mountain Primary School rebuild

Mr. Roberts:   My question is directed to the Minister of Education. This Liberal government is going to go down in political history as being the flip-flop government heroes of the century.

The Liberal press release today gives the Yukon public two flip-flops that this government has made: the Education Act, which I applaud — finally, the government has seen the light — and the building of Grey Mountain School. Basically, Mr. Speaker, this is called buying votes.

I was at the public meeting at Grey Mountain last month, and I listened to the pleas to build a school. The Minister of Education made this statement, and I quote, "My general impression is that there is limited public support for building of the Grey Mountain School." What the Liberals could do in these two Riverdale ridings is to give a cash donation of $1,700 to every voter.

Speaker:   Question please.

Mr. Roberts:   That would be less damaging than the $4-million school.

My question to the minister is this: why is the Liberal government buying votes at a time when they are claiming poverty?

Some Hon. Members: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Point of order

Speaker:   The government House leader, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:  The Member for Porter Creek North cannot make accusations regarding the buying of votes with the cash supplement, as he has implied. The question is clearly out of range of this Legislature.

Speaker:   The Member for Whitehorse Centre on the point of order.

Mr. McLarnon:  On the point of order, the member raised it as a hypothetical of "if they did this, this would happen." It certainly wasn’t an accusation.

Speaker’s ruling

Speaker:   Order please. The implying of the buying of votes is unparliamentary. The minister may choose not to answer that question if she wishes, and if the minister chooses not to answer the question we will proceed with the first supplementary.

But before I do, I will turn the clock back on and I will give the minister an opportunity to answer. If the minister chooses not to, we will proceed and I’ll call the first supplementary.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the Speaker covered the conduct of the member opposite quite clearly as being unparliamentary.

There was a promise made by this government. It was a promise made when we were in opposition, and we’re keeping that promise.

I asked that the planning money be put on hold until I could review the issue and get a sense of what those issues were first-hand as a new minister. What has come across very clearly is that that is a very successful school. We need to build on the successes for children. The children are the issue here. This is for the children, so that we can continue that success in a good environment.

I would note that the member opposite left the public meeting early before people could question him on his commitment to this in the past.

Mr. Roberts:   This government said they would do government differently, and the building of Grey Mountain Primary School is no different from the Liberals, when I was on that side, criticizing the NDP for building recreation complexes and schools in their communities. At least when the NDP built rec complexes and schools, there was a need. The building of Grey Mountain is not necessary at this time.

This a.m., the minister’s own official stated on the radio that our school population is dropping by 300 students, and much of that is at the elementary level. The Yukon will be losing 11 teachers. All elementary schools in Whitehorse have space, particularly Selkirk School, which is half empty and a few blocks down the road.

My question to the minister is, as normal practice for this government, will the minister be announcing this summer the closing of other elementary schools in Whitehorse to justify her decision to include Grey Mountain in the fall capital budget? Is this minister setting the stage for a fall election?

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   The Yukon has the best student/teacher ratio in the country. We’re looking at the successes of Grey Mountain Primary School, figuring out where those successes come from and trying to promote and encourage those successes in other schools. This is an example of something that is working for our children, and we should celebrate that and pass it on. What we need to do is have the dialogue to find out how we can transfer that success to other children elsewhere in this territory.

Mr. Roberts:  These teachers are excellent teachers. They would be excellent teachers in any school. Since we independents have moved to this side of the House, it has been the practice of this Liberal government to flip-flop on every major political issue. This government has reversed decisions on the following: drug and alcohol; the slowdown of YPAS, whatever that means; moving the experiential program from Wood Street; moving the English stream from Whitehorse Elementary; a delay of the Education Act.

This government has demonstrated no clear direction, and constituents have lost trust and confidence in this government. My question to the minister is, with the Legislature closing down in a few days, what other flip-flops will we see over the summer, with no accountability?

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Let's back up.

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Okay, let’s do that. Drug and alcohol services — would the members opposite like the courtesy of an answer or will they continue to act like clowns?

Speaker:   Order please.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Liberal platform made a strong commitment to devolution. It is done. We made a strong commitment to land claims. There are four signed MOUs, one land claim. We made a strong commitment to drug and alcohol services, and when the money became available, that is where we put it. We made a commitment to education and the success of education. We made a promise for Grey Mountain School, and guess what? We are keeping it.

When we got here, we said that we would listen to the people and they have asked for more time on the Education Act amendments and we are giving them more time on the Education Act amendments. What I hear is a listening, responsive, committed government to the people of this territory.

Question re:  Forestry industry future

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is to the Premier, and I hope the Premier will answer my next question instead of the Energy, Mines and Resources minister, who basically failed to answer yesterday.

The Minister of DIAND has admitted the mess his department has made in managing the Yukon’s forests. He is throwing money and staff positions into the equation. Will the Premier be seeking amendments to the devolution transfer agreement to guarantee that the new money and the new positions come to the Yukon on April 1 of next year?

Hon. Mr. Kent:  As I mentioned yesterday, the Minister of DIAND has made a two-year commitment for resources to address the issues surrounding the forest industry. We on this side of the House are fully prepared to move forward on forestry issues, ensuring that forestry once again becomes a strong economic contributor to the territory. That is a two-year commitment that the Minister of DIAND has made, and we look forward to those resources, and we look forward to developing the forest industry by using those resources.

Mr. Fairclough:   This is why I’m asking the Premier the question, because I get the same answers from the member opposite, who didn’t answer the question.

We’ve gone through a long period of turmoil in the public service because of renewal, and we still can’t get any answers about the impact of devolution on one of the biggest portfolios that is being transferred from the federal government to the territory. This is a renewal question, it’s a devolution question, and it is an intergovernmental affairs question. The Premier should be answering the question, Mr. Speaker.

Does the Premier intend to work the five new DIAND forestry positions into her renewed government structure after devolution?

Hon. Mr. Kent:  The answer to the leader of the official opposition’s question is that it’s a two-year commitment by the Minister of DIAND to address the outstanding issues as identified in the Tough report. We will work closely with the Minister of DIAND and his department officials to act on the recommendations of the Tough report as well as work with our other stakeholders in the forest industry to ensure that forestry does become the economic player that we all know that it can be in the territory.

Mr. Fairclough:   It’s not the answer that Yukoners have been waiting to hear from this government.

It has an opportunity to fight for Yukoners and it’s failing to do it, letting the federal government just come and go, even though they recognize that additional resources and people are needed in the forest sector. The federal government says they’ll have a solution for forest management within two years. In less than one year, the Yukon will be responsible for that area and will still be the tail on the federal dog for at least one year after devolution, Mr. Speaker.

Since the federal process has clearly not worked to Yukon’s advantage, what is the Premier doing right now to ensure that a made-in-Yukon forest management regime will be in place when devolution occurs?

Hon. Mr. Kent:   As I mentioned in my previous answer to the leader of the official opposition, there has been a two-year commitment made by the Minister of DIAND to allocate resources to fix the problems that ail the forest industry here in the Yukon.

To specifically answer the member’s question about what we are doing to ensure that there is a made-in-Yukon plan for forest management, I would refer him to the accountability plan for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. We are working on a number of policy initiatives as well as developing legislation. And now, certainly, with the Minister of DIAND’s comments from last week, there will be additional resources that we can allocate in partnership with DIAND to those opportunities. We look forward to fixing what ails the forest industry here in the Yukon and making sure that on April 1, 2003, when we take control of the forest resources and other resources under devolution, the Yukon is poised to make a strong economic statement in those industries, especially the forest industry.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Notice of opposition private members’ business

Mr. Jenkins:   Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would like to identify the items standing in the name of the third party to be called on Wednesday, May 29, 2002: Bill No. 103, standing in the name of the MLA for Klondike and Motion No. 273, standing in the name of the MLA for Watson Lake.

Speaker:   We will now proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Clerk:   Motion No. 248, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Motion No. 248

Speaker:   It is moved by the Premier

THAT, in celebration of the 100^th anniversary of the incorporation of the Town of Dawson City, this Assembly supports the designation of Dawson City as honorary capital of the Yukon for the duration of the centennial year commencing June 4, 2002.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   I am pleased to ask the members of the Legislative Assembly to support this motion that will recognize the contribution by Dawson to Yukon.

This year Dawson is celebrating the 100^th anniversary of the City of Dawson’s incorporation as a city. The City of Dawson had suggested this as an idea for the Government of Yukon to recognize that special event. By bringing forward this motion, we are offering all members of the House an opportunity to recognize the contribution of Dawson and to recognize that suggestion. The chance to recognize Dawson is set as a six-month period beginning in June as Dawson prepares to once again host the western premiers conference. Dawson City has hosted the western premiers conference before. It is in fact a direct request from two of the premiers that we are returning to Dawson, as Yukon is again hosting. It is also tradition that the western premiers are not hosted in the capital city of the province or territory.

With the request, specifically from Premier Klein and Premier Okalik, who I know watches this broadcast on a regular basis, we are returning to Dawson again. What is unique on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, as the western premiers return, is that we are also hosting the Western Governors Association. This is an innovation that began two years ago in 2000, when the western premiers started hosting every other year the representatives of the Western Governors Association. Governor Tony Knowles will join us from Alaska, our neighbour, as well as Governor Jim Geringer from Wyoming.

We also have two ambassadors who will be joining the meeting, as has been the custom — Canada’s Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Michael Kergin, and the United States Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Paul Celucci. On that occasion, as we are beginning our deliberations, on behalf of members of the Legislature, I would like to recognize Dawson City’s contribution to the Yukon by designating it, as they had requested, the honorary capital of the Yukon for the duration of their centennial year.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a year of celebration. We had the opportunity in January to attend the inaugural ball, and it would have been ideal to do it at that point but, unfortunately, we hadn’t had a chance to bring the motion before this Legislature to do this, and this is truly a legislative motion and an opportunity.

We also recognize, by doing this, Dawson’s contribution to the Yukon as a whole, not only as a former capital, but also their contribution in terms of the gold-mining activity that takes place in Dawson and the historic site that is Dawson. Dawson is also an example of a community that has turned itself around, built their community, built their tourism industry with the pluck and hard work of Dawsonites themselves. Recognizing that gold mining was coming to an end, they lobbied Parks Canada and became truly a historic site. The recognition of the Klondike Visitors Association should not go without our thanks and without our recognition of their contribution, as well. They have made a tremendous contribution, as Dawsonites continue to do today — well recognized as Yukoners, and certainly part of our colourful personality that makes up the entire Yukon.

I would encourage and request all members of the House to support this motion that will provide an honour to Dawson during this portion of their centennial year. I especially look forward to the Member for Klondike’s support for this, as I believe it is something that recognizes his riding and home community and, indeed, is something that all members can support as something we as legislators are expected to do — not only recognize our communities but all Yukoners, as the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin did so eloquently today in her tribute in recognizing her community.

This is a like motion, in that it recognizes Dawson’s historic contribution as a capital city to the territory. I would seek and ask all members to support this motion in recognition of Dawson and their centennial of their incorporation as a city.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the time and attention of members today.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, I’ll be very brief in my comments to this motion. We in the official opposition certainly support this motion. Obviously, communities around the territory make up the Yukon Territory. It’s not just about Whitehorse, and I’m glad that the Liberal government has been working with the City of Dawson to have it as the capital for the rest of this year, starting in June, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I’m hoping that the Liberal government can also give the same recognition to others who want to celebrate their communities — for example, the community of Mayo and their 100^th anniversary this summer. I’m hoping the same effort and recognition will be given to their wishes and that this government will work as hard and put as much effort into working with that community as they do with Dawson City.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly approve of this move. It’s a recognition of a community outside of Whitehorse. There are many communities like that around the territory that should have recognition given to them in regard to this. I’m hoping that as we do this, this summer — it’s all about Dawson and the gold rush and so on — that recognition be given to the people who really led the gold seekers to the gold fields. And it’s the aboriginal people, the women who led them to the gold fields, and this should be clearly recognized as we move the capital to Dawson for the rest of the summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a wonderful day. I find myself in agreement with the Premier of the Yukon. It’s amazing, and I’d like to thank the Premier and her Liberal government for bringing forth this motion.

Now, Dawson City was established after the discovery of gold on a little-known creek called Rabbit Creek. The name of that creek was quickly changed to Bonanza, and up sprung the community of Dawson and from there the establishment of the Yukon as a distinct part of the Northwest Territories.

Today, Dawson is a living historical community, but more importantly, what makes Dawson what it is are her people. The residents of that community take immense pride in being residents in the Klondike capital. They take immense pride in the historic significance of the area. They take immense pride in their heritage and culture.

Our Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in people are intricately involved in all facets of the community and they have played a very pivotal role in developing the community into what it is today.

There are a number of non-profit organizations. The Klondike Visitors Association contributes a quarter of a million dollars a year to the Government of Yukon to spend as they see fit, and there are the proceeds out of the efforts and work of that organization, Mr. Speaker. The Dawson City Arts Society, the Dawson City Museum — all of these organizations and many, many more are the life and heart of the community of Dawson.

Yes, we have quite a number of historic sites and very significant national historic sites. Some of the numbers that we like to throw out are, back in the days of the gold rush when the Yukon was established and when Dawson became incorporated in 1902, that there were about 60,000-odd individuals in the Yukon. Do you know there were fewer than 100 people administering the whole Yukon at that time, but we have progress today. We have a population of half that number, and when we add up all the people involved in looking after the Yukon, we have about 5,000 today looking after 30,000 individuals. Progress, I guess, Mr. Speaker, progress.

And we have five churches in Dawson and eight members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police posted there, Mr. Speaker, so we’re either really good or really bad. No one has quite figured it out. But at the end of the day, we welcome the opportunity to host events like the western premiers conference, like the western governors conference, the Western Governors Association, and we can showcase Dawson City. It’s a jewel in the crown of the Yukon, Mr. Speaker, and it’s kind of being cast over with a layer of dust every now and then unless, of course, someone demands that it be showcased. We can look back a number of years when Dawson was very much on the skids. An official from London, England, who was very much involved with the Royal Family showed up in the Klondike and took the message back to Ottawa, "You can’t let this place be destroyed and sink into the permafrost. You’re going to have to do something and restore it." That gave way to Parks Canada’s involvement in the restoration of the Palace Grand Theatre.

The Palace Grand theatre was purchased from its previous owners by the Klondike Visitors Association and sold to Parks Canada for a dollar. It has been completely restored and is one of the showcase buildings today.

Mr. Speaker, I’m sure my community and everyone there welcomes the opportunity to showcase our community once again. After all, we do have all these wonderful historic buildings and, when they moved the capital to Whitehorse, all the hot air came to Whitehorse also — myself excluded, of course. We have the best of both. We have the beautiful buildings and, most of the time, the elected officials stay here.

So, I’m very much in support of this motion and I’m sure this House will give it unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to agree with the Premier of the Yukon on this occasion.

Mr. McLarnon:   On behalf of the independents, we will vote for this motion as well, but what we will add is a number of statements about it. Thank God for the western premiers conference and the western governors conference because, without those, I doubt there would be any recognition of Dawson’s 100^th anniversary at all. We heard the Premier explain, in the first part of her speech, about all these conferences going on, and then found a way to honour Dawson after that, once she had explained the real reason for this announcement — which was for a photo opportunity at the time of the western premiers conference.

What we also see is the frustration, in many cases in Dawson City, of the projects that weren’t considered to leave a lasting legacy as a celebration of 100 years surviving in the north, of 100 years of the city being there. Proposals were presented to this government through the Klondike Arts Institute and the Klondike Centennial Society. These proposals were not funded.

It came to approximately $500,000. Ironically that is about the same amount of money being spent on the Grey Mountain School planning. So, we see priorities here; we see where they are going. We would definitely like to leave an impression that we will be voting for this. It is the very least this Legislature could do for that city.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   I would like to publicly thank all members of the House for their support for this motion in recognition of Dawson City and the 100^th anniversary of the inauguration of Dawson as a city. I would like to thank the Member for Klondike for his colourful recounting of Dawson history and its contribution to the Yukon. This government has recognized Dawson not only during this, the centennial year, but throughout our two years as we will continue to recognize and work with all communities in the Yukon, including the riding of Kluane. We have worked with all the communities and some of their issues with Parks Canada and some of the other issues that are present throughout Yukon. We are, after all, all Yukoners, and I appreciate the opportunity for all Yukoners to recognize the contribution of Dawson and thank members for their support.

Motion No. 248 agreed to

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   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 that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:   Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Disagree.

Mr. Keenan:   Disagree.

Mr. McRobb:   Disagree.

Mrs. Peter:   Disagree.

Mr. Jenkins:   Disagree.

Mr. Fentie:   Disagree.

Mr. Jim:   Disagree.

Mr. McLarnon:   Disagree.

Mr. Roberts:   Disagree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are seven yea, nine nay.

Motion negatived

Designation of government business

Speaker:   As per Standing Order 13(1) and Standing Order 12(2) the Chair must seek the direction of the government House leader as to the business to be called.

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   For government business, we’ll call third reading of Bill No. 10.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 10, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   I move that Bill No. 10, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 2001-02, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 10, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 2001-02, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   This is a close-out, if you will, to the 2001-02 fiscal year. It is the supplementary, which has been discussed in the House — discussed at length, I might add — and has received the support of members opposite, and I look forward to it clearing through the third reading and the members opposite providing their support as we conclude the fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   Does any other member wish to be heard?

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. McLachlan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Keenan:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Mr. Jim:   Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:   Agree.

Mr. Roberts:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 16 yea, nil nay.

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

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 10 agreed to

Speaker:  I declare that Bill No. 10 has passed this House.

Designation of government business

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Bill No. 73, Act to Amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Bill No. 73: Third Reading

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 73, standing in the name of the hon. Mrs. Edelman.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   I move that Bill No. 73, entitled Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. minister responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board that Bill No. 73, entitled Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my third reading speech on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the government’s effort to find a compromise or to fix an inequity that arose when the maximum wage rate formula under the 1983 Workers’ Compensation Act could no longer be used.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly elegant and simple solution to a long-standing problem about maximum wage rate and the benefits that injured workers have been paid over a number of years.

What this act does, Mr. Speaker, is essentially bring indexing into the equation. Therefore, this bill will accomplish what it is supposed to do for 20 of the 26 workers who will be affected on receiving compensation during the time period that is covered within Bill No. 73.

Mr. Speaker, the approximate cost to the Government of Yukon will be somewhere in the range of $320,000, and the payments or benefits will be paid retroactively to January 1, 2002.

Mr. Speaker, the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board will be further deliberating on this issue. There are sufficient funds within the fund to cover these requirements. Only the Government of Yukon was self-insured during the time period that is covered.

There has been an effort to find additional funding out of the prevention and benefit enhancement reserve. The worker/stakeholder advisory committee has recommended to the board that transferring approximately $1 million a year over the next five years to the benefit liability reserve would result in no increases to assessments. This is an opportunity for a win-win situation, and I highly commend it to this Legislature.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:   I rise as opposition House leader and give our complete support to this Bill No. 73, and also, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that we also give full support to all the other bills we anticipate coming up. I’ll put it in the form of a motion, Mr. Speaker, if that’s appropriate at this time. If I have your indulgence, I’ll proceed with a motion.

Speaker:   I’m sorry. The Chair will have to hear the motion.

Request for unanimous consent to expedite business

Mr. McRobb:   That’s fine, Mr. Speaker. I was just seeking a green light from you at this time.

I move that we unanimously accept and agree to Bill No. 73, as well as Bill No. 64, Bill No. 72, Bill No. 56, Bill No. 55, and Bill No. 51, and adopt them with unanimous third reading approval.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:   Order please.

The Chair is informed the official opposition House leader cannot ask for unanimous consent respecting all the noted bills that were mentioned and are on the Order Paper. We are on Bill No. 73. The accepted practice is to deal with each bill individually; therefore, I believe the correct procedure now is to continue on with Bill No. 73.

The official opposition House leader has the floor.

Mr. McRobb:   I want to thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I knew there was a chance it would be procedurally out of order, but the intent is still there and, according to my calculations, we could save more than one hour of House time this afternoon and save the taxpayers more than $1,000 by avoiding a delay in the amount of time to pass each one of these bills. We saw the Liberals rise on division, which adds an extra five minutes or more to the process. We can save that time if we can just quickly pass each bill through this House after they’re introduced, in accordance with your ruling.

Speaker:   Does any other member wish to be heard?

Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:   Order. Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Keenan:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Mr. Jim:   Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:   Agree.

Mr. Roberts:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 16 yea, nil nay.

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

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 73 agreed to

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

Designation of government business

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Bill No. 64, Spousal Compensation Act.

Bill No. 64: Third Reading

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 64, standing in the name of the hon. Mrs. Edelman.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 64, entitled Spousal Compensation Act, be read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Health and Social Services that Bill No. 64, entitled Spousal Compensation Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure that, in the third and final reading of this bill, we talk about reinstating the benefits cut off after the Charter came into full force and effect, which was in 1985. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was approved on April 17, 1982. At that time, governments across Canada were given three years to make their legislation compliant with the Charter.

What this bill does is to reinstate benefits for spouses of deceased workers who received a lump sum when they remarried but lost their ongoing benefits. Dependants, by the way, Mr. Speaker, continue to receive their benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this act will also ensure that common-law spouses receive compensation benefits where those benefits were terminated because of remarriage or because the individual entered into another common-law relationship. Things have changed since the early 1980s.

Mr. Speaker, I want to once again thank the many people who worked on this bill to bring it forward to the Legislature. Thank you to the staff of the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board, as well as our Justice staff and the staff of our office. Thank you.

Speaker:   Does any other member wish to be heard? 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. McLachlan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Keenan:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Mr. Jim:   Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:   Agree.

Mr. Roberts:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 16 yea, nil nay.

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

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 64 agreed to

Speaker:  I declare that Bill No. 64 has passed this House.

Designation of government business

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Bill No. 51, the Official Tree Act.

Bill No. 51: Third Reading

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 51, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Eftoda.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   I move that Bill No. 51, entitled Official Tree Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Minister of Environment that Bill No. 51, entitled Official Tree Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   I know everyone will want to speak glowingly on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this piece of legislation is to grant further credibility to the stature of Yukon in adopting a tree known as the subalpine fir as the official tree of Yukon.

The fact is that, in 2001, the Yukon public voted on which tree should be recognized as the official tree, similar to the official recognition given to the Yukon bird, the Yukon tartan, and flag. As a result of the vote — and, Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly important that we do record our vote on these bills, as it gives an indication to Yukoners that we are acting on their behalf at all times.

The origin of this motion, Motion No. 45 originally, requesting consultations on the establishment of an official Yukon tree was introduced by the Member for Mount Lorne in this Yukon Legislature on November 21, 2001.

In response to Motion No. 45, the Department of Environment conducted research to determine candidates for our Yukon tree by identifying trees occurring in the Yukon that have not been designated an official tree within other Canadian jurisdictions. A truly involving process then occurred in that a public contest to name the Yukon tree was initiated in May of 2001. The Yukon public was asked to make a choice of four candidates: the subalpine fir, the trembling aspen, balsam poplar and the felt-leaf willow. After the ballots were counted, the winner was the subalpine fir, and this announcement was made by press release and a ceremony by myself on June 15, 2001. The official tree will now be proudly accepted within the Yukon by this Legislature.

We look forward to the unanimous support of this bill by way of a recorded vote, and we do look for supportive comments from the members opposite.

Speaker:   Does any other member wish to be heard?

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   I take great pleasure in standing today to support this motion that I brought to the floor some time ago, and I do believe it is important to the Yukon and its identity both nationally and locally.

There has been some comment on recording votes on the House and why it’s important to. I just wanted to comment on that because it’s especially important to record votes when members are changing parties. It helps to ensure that MLAs are held accountable to their constituents for what they individually support. This is a record of not only a party vote, but an individual vote, so that constituents can hold their MLAs accountable. I believe that is very important as MLAs in this Legislature, so I support a division.

Speaker:   Does any other member wish to be heard?

Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:   Order please. Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Keenan:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Mr. Jim:   Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:   Agree.

Mr. Roberts:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 16 yea, nil nay.

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

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 51 agreed to

Speaker:  I declare that Bill No. 51 has passed this House.

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Bill No. 55, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (No. 5).

Bill No. 55: Third Reading

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 55, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 55, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (No. 5), be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 55, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (No. 5), be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   This is an important amendment to the Yukon’s Income Tax Act. It is an amendment as a result of the mineral exploration tax credit and for the continuance of that particular initiative.

It’s an act whose principal purpose extends the Yukon mineral exploration tax credit for an additional year. Right now, the credit, as it was debated, was due to expire on March 31, 2002, and it will now continue until March 31 of next year. It is the second time our government has so amended the Income Tax Act, Mr. Speaker. We’re proud of the work this government has undertaken with respect to this particular initiative. It’s a very good one. It’s a tax credit that is very popular with the industry and it has contributed significantly to the exploration activity over the past several years.

The expected uptake on the credit amounts to approximately $2.1 million for the year. It is money that is not so much spent by the Yukon government but is money foregone for the benefit of the territory.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that since this act was initially introduced in the Legislature and passed through Committee, the exploration figures have come out for the year and there has been some cautious optimism expressed, as well as I’m sure the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who may also wish to speak to this particular bill, will note the positive exploration activity that is expected to be undertaken this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to a recorded vote on this particular important initiative of the government.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   I would like to speak briefly about this initiative that we have undertaken to extend the mineral exploration tax credit for another year at its enhanced rate of 25 percent — this is very important. It is part of the information, incentives and infrastructure portion of the mine plan. Also included in that portion of the mine plan are increases to the Yukon geology program. We will spend approximately $1.6 million this year building the database that industry relies upon to make investments in the Yukon. $250,000 will be spent under the new Yukon mineral development program, which will focus attention on Yukon’s best mineral districts. A compilation of Yukon’s world-class zinc belts in the Selwyn Basin has already been completed and is on-line.

Comprehensive information about Yukon’s mineral resources is now available on the Internet. As well, funding for the Yukon mining incentives program recently announced is in the neighbourhood of $920,000, I believe, which is important to note will leverage approximately $2.5 million in exploration this year, according to figures submitted by the applicants.

Under the infrastructure portion, we’re also undertaking an access corridor study that will assist in land use planning and help resource developers in identifying appropriate access options for project proposals. $627,000 will be spent on resource assessments to improve information about Yukon’s mineral resources for land use planning. Of course, we’ve invested significant resources to assist the owners of the Cantung mine by upgrading the Nahanni Range Road in order to put Yukoners back to work.

I should note for members of the Assembly that I did meet with the president and CEO of North American Tungsten this morning and he is intending on adding another shift at the mine site which will add approximately 24 more jobs. As well, in speaking with officials from the Na Cho Nyäk Dun Development Corporation, I should also inform members of the House that there are approximately 12 Yukoners working at the Elsa mine site refurbishing the mill and doing a number of other jobs up there, as the proponent of that project moves toward possible production this winter.

Certainly the programs and incentives that we have introduced are very well respected and highly rated throughout the industry. Our tax regime ranks very high among competing jurisdictions with regard to the mining industry.

Extending the Yukon mineral exploration tax credit is very important, after it was enhanced by the Premier to 25 percent and extended this year under my watch for Energy, Mines and Resources. Again, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s very important that bills such as these are voted for, and voted on the record.

Mr. Jenkins:   I feel I must stand and speak to this bill on third reading. It’s an important bill. It’s a bill I support. It’s a bill that shows some leadership on the part of this Liberal government, but it is all going to come to no fruition with the Minister of Environment running around creating nothing but parks here in the Yukon, Mr. Speaker.

This government gives on one hand and takes away with the other. We start looking at some of the other initiatives. They lower the personal income tax rate; they raise all the fees. This is probably one of the best packages put together for the mining industry for tax credits. It’s recognized as such, but it is not going to restore investor confidence in the Yukon, and until this Liberal government gets that message, mining and mining exploration will remain at an all-time low in the Yukon.

It’s sad, because we have some of the best mineral potential, not only in North America, but in the world.

That has been recognized time and time again, and the resource extraction industry has been the basis of the Yukon. That was the whole reason it came into existence as a distinct territory of Canada.

Now, this is one initiative I see as being extremely beneficial to the mining community but, until they address the all-important issue that the Minister of Environment has to be balanced by the resource extraction area and the recognition that the Yukon can’t be one continuous grid of parks, something has to give over on that side of the House, and the reality of the day has to take hold, Mr. Speaker.

I commend the minister responsible for bringing this bill forward. It’s a good bill, but I encourage the Premier, in her capacity as Minister of Finance, to address her other areas of responsibility that she is grossly negligent in doing, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   I, too, Mr. Speaker, do stand in full support of this bill. Again, it bears repeating. It was encouraging to hear the Member for Klondike say that he is supporting the bill, as I’m sure that it is important we all record our vote on this important tax bill.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the continual and perpetuating negative attitude by the Member for Klondike does nothing to encourage any kind of business in the territory, whether it be mining or tourism. The member opposite continually bombards the House and the public at large with negative attitudes, which is incredibly unfortunate.

The fact is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I are working very closely and cooperatively in finding new and innovative ways to encourage exploration to occur in the territory. A very good indication of that cooperation is the fact that we have slowed down the YPAS process. There are some members of the public who are a little disappointed that this government has taken that action; but, again, due to the teamwork, the constant effort, the vigilance of this government, we have found that in order to encourage investment in the territory, it was a wise and prudent move. We don’t have any hidden agenda. We are also continuing assessment works, both engineering, geological and biological on areas in the territory.

The fact is we have slowed down the process. When we get ready for MOUs that were initialled, move forward toward ratification in a year, then we will be at that time evaluating where we are with YPAS and quite possibly starting to gear up again. The fact is that we are engaging members of the coalition, that we are listening respectfully to what they have to say on the process. We said we would do that and we are doing that. We do, though, with all due diligence — all members on this side of the House — want an economy in this territory and it is happening. What we do want and we do feel that we do have to have is a recorded vote on this bill.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   I rise to close debate on this important issue. The amendments to the Income Tax Act are important, and I appreciate the fact that the Member for Klondike has recognized the good work that this government has done and continues to do in this and all areas.

The fact is that we are all well aware of some of the difficulties that the mining industry has experienced and it is important as a government that we recognize this important economic sector. This credit has proven popular with the industry, and we are assured that it has contributed significantly to exploration in the past and we are assured that it will contribute again in the future.

As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has noted also, the price of gold will also enhance our exploration interest in the Yukon this summer, and we are expecting modest increases in exploration. We also recognize, as a government, that more work needs to be done. More work needs to be done with respect to the areas that we, as Yukoners, determine we will protect and those areas we will develop. We as Yukoners must make those decisions, working with one another as the Minister of Environment has pledged to do and has done and continues to do.

"By your actions, you shall know them," Mr. Speaker, is a common expression and all the ministers in this government have demonstrated a cooperative and listening attitude to our constituents and it’s reflected in bills such as these, which we on this side are proud to support.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   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. McLachlan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Keenan:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Mr. Jim:   Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:   Agree.

Mr. Roberts:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

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

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 55 agreed to

Speaker:   I declare that Bill No. 55 has passed this House.

Designation of government business

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Bill No. 72, Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act.

Bill No. 72: Third Reading

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 72, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 72, Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, be now read a third time and do pass this House.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 72, Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, some members asked questions during the initial reading of this bill. Indemnification clauses are what the bill addresses. The bill is a result of a recent change in federal policy respecting intergovernmental agreements. The question was asked, "Provide an example of the sort of opportunity Yukon has missed out on as a result of not having this particular clause in our Financial Administration Act." An example I would like to cite is that in 2001-02, the agriculture branch of the Department of Renewable Resources was unable to access almost $50,000 in funding assistance for the agriculture industry programs. The Canada-Yukon agri-food innovation program agreement, from which the funding was to be provided, could not be finalized because the federal government has introduced this issue in which they require an indemnification clause. The Government of Yukon could not provide the indemnification to Canada, as it would have required amendments to legislation. The whole difficulty that we were continually running into was that each time we wanted to enter an agreement, we had to amend an act.

The Financial Administration Act amendment that I have brought forward in my capacity as Finance minister does grant this indemnity and indicates that we are available to proceed with these cost-sharing agreements with Canada, and they result in the recovery of money by the territory. Again, it would be extremely unwieldy if we were to pass an act for every one of these agreements. Even if we were to table a bill that covered what we thought were maybe all the known agreements, we would still have the difficulty of having to do numerous new arrangements and amendments to acts. This particular bill will cover off all those particular issues. I commend it to the House. It is straightforward housekeeping. It is good legislation and overcomes a previously encountered difficulty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   Does any other member wish to be heard? 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. McLachlan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Keenan:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Mr. Jim:   Agree.

Mr. Roberts:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

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

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 72 agreed to

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

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Bill No 56, Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act (No. 2).

Bill No. 56: Third Reading

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 56, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   I move that Bill No. 56, Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act (No. 2), be now read a third time and do pass this House.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 56, Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act (No. 2), be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   My second reading remarks spoke to the reasons for this measure. It is something that has been discussed a great deal throughout Canada, as many — if not most — jurisdictions have implemented a similar increase in tobacco tax, although I must say that most provincial increases are much higher than the one the Yukon has instituted.

I also indicated at second reading that our tax on cigarettes will increase by four cents per cigarette as of July 1, 2002. Unfortunately, personally, taxes on cigars and loose tobacco will also rise in a similar proportion.

No government likes to increase taxes; however, Mr. Speaker, we agree that this is one increase that is justified and warranted under the circumstances.

The use of tobacco is a major cause of, or contributor to, a host of health problems, many of which lead to premature death or disablement.

Mr. Speaker, we believe this increase in the tobacco tax will discourage demand and increase the financial resources available to sustain government’s many programs, including the program of tobacco reduction.

We believe that this increase has met generally with acceptance from the vast majority of Yukon citizens, including those who do currently consume tobacco products.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we have done this in an effort to deal with the growing problem and to raise the funds necessary to cope with escalating health care costs caused at least in part by the use of tobacco.

Mr. Speaker, this is, while a difficult measure for governments to undertake — as I’ve noted, other provincial and territorial governments have undertaken a similar increase this year. In fact, the other provincial increases have been somewhat more significant than some of the other increases, such as those, for example, in the neighbouring Province of Alberta.

I look forward to members’ support for this difficult but necessary measure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   Does any other member wish to be heard?

Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:   Order please. Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Keenan:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Mr. Jim:   Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:   Disagree.

Mr. Roberts:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, 1 nay.

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

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 56 agreed to

Speaker:  I declare that Bill No. 56 has passed this House.

Request for recess

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Mr. Speaker, I request the indulgence of the House to make a special request. I request a 15-minute recess at this time until 3:45 p.m. in order that the House leaders may assemble in five minutes in the Legislative Assembly committee room.

Speaker:   Given the circumstances in the House today I am inclined to agree with the request from the government House leader. However, before making that decision the Chair would like to hear from the House leaders that they agree.

Mr. McRobb:   I have no problem agreeing to this, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact it is consistent with a suggestion made by the official opposition earlier in the day to help resolve this impasse.

Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, this conforms to what was discussed at House leaders’ meeting this morning but the suggestion was concluded that the government House leader did not have a mandate to go beyond a certain point. It was suggested that the leader of the official opposition along with the leader of the third party and the Premier get together along with the representative from the independent Liberals and that if it cannot be resolved at House leaders’ meeting to come to an understanding and move forward the business of the House.

Mr. McLarnon:   Mr. Speaker, since you’re asking all House leaders, this House leader will now speak and say that we are fine with the meeting as well, as suggested earlier, and wish that the government had taken the advice earlier.

Speaker:   Seeing that we have agreement of the House leaders, the Chair will now order a 20-minute break for the House leaders to meet.

Recess

Speaker:   I will now call the House to order.

We will resume the business of the day, and I’d ask the government House leader to indicate the next item of business, please.

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   There is no other government-designated business.

Speaker:   As there is no further government-designated business, pursuant to Standing Order 13(1) we shall proceed to motions others than government motions.

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk:   Motion No. 5, standing in the name of Mr. McRobb.

Motion No. 5

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McRobb:   I’m trying to find the clause number, to be of greater assistance, but what I would like to do is defer this motion to consideration at a later date.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 7, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Motion No. 7

Speaker:   Is the hon. member ready to proceed?

Mr. Jenkins:   Defer to the next sitting day, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 11, standing in the name of Mr. McRobb.

Motion No. 11

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McRobb:   No, I’m not, Mr. Speaker, and I detect a pattern arising here. It results from a failure of the government to intercept this procedural roadblock that is developing. So again, I move that this motion be deferred.

Speaker:   Order. I’d just like to indicate to the members that it’s the Chair’s belief that the proper procedure is just simply to say, "The next sitting day," and the Chair will acknowledge it by, "So ordered." The member's request to defer Motion No. 11 to the next sitting day is so ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 12, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Motion No. 12

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to defer to the next sitting day.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 13, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Motion No. 13

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Jenkins:   I defer to the next sitting day, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 17, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Motion No. 17

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Jenkins:   Once again, due to the inability of the House leaders to reach agreement, we have to defer.

Speaker:   Until the next sitting day?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 18, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Motion No. 18

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Jenkins:   I defer to the next sitting day, please, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 19, standing in the name of Mr. McLarnon.

Motion No. 19

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McLarnon:   I defer to the next sitting day, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 22, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Motion No. 22

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Jenkins:   I defer to the next sitting day, please, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 23, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Motion No. 23

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Jenkins:   I defer to the next sitting day, please.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 24, standing in the name of Mr. Keenan.

Motion No. 24

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Keenan:   I defer to the next sitting day.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 25, standing in the name of Mr. McRobb.

Motion No. 25

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McRobb:   I defer to the next sitting day, please, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 30, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Motion No. 30

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Jenkins:   I defer to the next sitting day, please, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:  Motion No. 31, standing in the name of Mr. Keenan; adjourned debate on amended motion, Mr. Fentie.

Motion No. 31 — adjourned debate

Speaker:   The Member for Watson Lake has the floor if he wants it.

For the clarity of all of Hansard and here, the Chair will read the motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) like most parts of Canada, especially northern Canada, the Yukon is facing a possible shortage of doctors and other medical personnel;

(2) such shortages could pose a serious hardship for Yukon people, both in the City of Whitehorse and in rural communities; and

(3) this is an issue that requires thoughtful, long-term planning that should not be limited by partisan political considerations; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to continue working to solve the ongoing problem of recruiting and retaining medical personnel through the territory.

There was adjourned debate. The Member for Watson Lake has the floor if he wishes to continue. If not, we will continue with debate from other members who haven’t spoken yet.

Mr. Fentie:   I see no purpose in extending the debate on this motion. Therefore, I will not continue the debate.

Speaker:   Does any other member wish to be heard?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Mr. Speaker, we’re looking at Motion No. 31. This motion talks about the ongoing problem of recruiting and retaining medical personnel throughout the territory.

This government has been working very hard on this issue. Throughout the doctors’ negotiations, this issue came up repeatedly. To that end, we are working with the Yukon Medical Association on recruitment and retention issues similar to the work that we are working on with the Yukon Registered Nurses Association and the union throughout the Yukon Advisory Committee on Nursing also on recruitment and retention issues.

Recruitment and retention are very important issues throughout the world now — not only recruitment, but retention.

And when I speak about retention, that, in fact, is probably the biggest problem. Once we get health professionals here to the Yukon Territory, we want to keep them. It’s important to find ways — good, practical ways — that we can keep particularly our nurse practitioners and our rural doctors working in rural Yukon. It has been very difficult over the years to try to bring in new doctors from outside the Yukon Territory; but nevertheless, this government has tried over the last two years to bring in some new doctors and to offer new services through the Yukon Medical Association.

Two of those new services are here in Whitehorse with the walk-in clinic. The two walk-in clinics here in Whitehorse offer an entirely different style of service to what we have had in the past. Yukon medical doctors typically have worked at the hospital as well as they have offered office hours to Yukoners.

In addition to that, Yukon doctors travel to the outside communities as well as live in the outside communities offering their services. Indeed, medical practice in the rural areas is very different than it is in Whitehorse. This is primarily because of the cost and we offer a number of different types of fees for Yukon medical doctors. Some of those doctors are paid by contract, and this is the most common practice in areas where there has been a problem not only recruiting doctors but retaining doctors. Those are particularly in the very small communities within the Yukon. The contract basically gives doctors the ability to have a guaranteed income over the course of a year because if it were on a fee-for-service basis, obviously, with a very small population that would lead to a problem with an income for those doctors in the rural communities. We are looking at the different fee structures. In the Romanow report, for example, there was a clear indication of two things. The first thing is that we have a health care system that we can no longer afford. Canadians want to keep socialized medicine in Canada, but they are also very much aware of the fact that they can’t afford it.

The second thing that came out — and this is in the preliminary report that I read — was that in the rest of Canada — and, of course, it’s a little different here because we have different arrangements — we should be seriously looking at the fee-for-service notion with Yukon and with Canadian physicians. The reason for that is, in many ways, what we are doing is paying doctors to keep people sick. It’s Mr. Romanow’s opinion that if we pay doctors to keep people healthy, perhaps that would be the more preventive and more possible health care system we need in Canada. It would support that notion. His notion, of course, is that prevention is the best tool with health care, similar to the previous Health minister, actually — a very strong proponent of that opinion.

So, what the Romanow commission was saying is that, if we pay doctors on a fee-for-service basis, we’re rewarding doctors for keeping a number of people coming in sick. What we need to look at is other models — preventive models — so we bring in patients to keep them healthy. How can we do that?

In the Yukon, we are actually doing that, to a smaller extent — looking at Dawson City, for example, where people come in for their yearly checks. That’s sort of preventive work because doctors have the time in Dawson City, and it’s really good preventive health care.

Those models are what we’re looking at when we look at recruitment and retention. The reason, too, that the doctors in Dawson can spend that extra time with their patients is because they have made a lifestyle choice about that community — as many doctors in the Yukon have about the Yukon Territory — and they have the time to spend with their patients. That’s a rare commodity in Canada.

I know that our southern counterparts are quite familiar with getting to the doctor’s office, waiting for an hour, and then spending all of 10 minutes with their physician. In the rural communities, I know there is far more time given to the patient, and there’s an opportunity to talk about many health issues, not just the primary health care problem of the day.

It’s important to work with the Yukon Medical Association to recruit and retain doctors because they are the ones who know. They are the ones who know what it’s like to work in Dawson City. They’re the ones who know what it’s like to work at Whitehorse General Hospital. They’re the ones who are on call around Beaver Creek or any of the other communities, and they know the pressures they face on a daily basis. They know what will entice people to come here and practise their profession and they know what it will take to keep people here.

Of course, we have a major advantage in the Yukon Territory because we offer an incredible lifestyle. You can ski right out your back door. You can cycle; you can kayak; you can be very much a part of the arts community, you can certainly offer recreational opportunities for your children that you would not get in any other jurisdiction. For example, I have friends who live in Ottawa and their child plays hockey much like my son used to play hockey, and they’re at the arena at 4:00 in the morning. Although we do have to be at the arena at 6:00 in the morning quite often, at least it’s not that bad, nor are we expected to have our young children play hockey late at night. So we know that most of the hours for the kids — they’re finished about 9:30 and that’s a real advantage.

Our pool here, for example, in Whitehorse, even though it’s about 95 percent used — and that utilization rate, which is absolutely incredible, means that we have a very fit population and, indeed, the last indicators report said that we are some of the fittest people in Canada — it’s still a great opportunity to go in and use the pool as often as we do.

I know that in all the rural communities there’s a summer pool. That’s in every Yukon community except, I believe, Old Crow, and this offers that sort of recreational opportunity that you don’t get in small towns of that size in other parts of Canada.

We can sell the lifestyle; we can sell the beauty of the mountains; we can sell a really strong community sense of what it’s like to be a Yukoner and what it’s like to practise a profession in the Yukon.

That’s why we have so many professionals within the territory. We have an extremely large number of lawyers, for example. We probably have more lawyers per capita than just about anywhere else in Canada. These are professionals who chose to practise here and have chosen the Yukon Territory because of the fine lifestyle we offer.

We will be working with doctors over the next few years on recruitment and retention issues. It looks like the shortage of medical professionals, whether they’re doctors, nurses or lab techs, will only be exacerbated over time.

Yukon doctors have been very kind to work with us on issues around legislation. So, for example, we can bring in medical professionals from other jurisdictions to work within the Yukon, not just from the rest of Canada, but from other places in the Commonwealth, and they can now practise here in the Yukon Territory. This was a recent change in our legislation that allowed for that. We worked with the Yukon Medical Association on that very issue. Once again, that’s recruitment, but where we shine is retention.

We are very, very fortunate that this is a small community, and we all have a vested interest in keeping a strong and healthy population here in the Yukon Territory. Part of that is working with our health professionals, like the Yukon Medical Association, and part of that is showing support from our communities.

I have recently heard that in Ross River, for example, the nurses at the health centre are quite often being visited by members of the community, who are asking, "How are you doing? Is everything okay?" So, there’s that support on a daily basis from members of that community for their nurses who offer health care in that community.

When we presented to the Romanow commission we were quite taken aback when Mr. Romanow asked us about the type of health care we offer in our rural communities. He said "Well, why don’t you use nurse practitioners to deliver that type of health care?"

We said, "We already to do that; we are already there. We are the model for the rest of Canada in many, many ways."

This is where we are fortunately because we have had to do things differently over time because of limited professionals up here. People, even though this is a great place to live, have trouble believing that. Many people outside of the Yukon still believe that we live in igloos. Our American tourists often come up here and are prime examples of that. They are expecting snow and lately we have had snow; even in the spring. It is hard to get people here but once we do get them here we are quite lucky.

The whole issue about the shortage of medical health care professionals is a valid one. One in 10 employed Canadians worked in health care and social services in 2000. It is a big issue and there is a shortage. There is a shortage of social workers, lab technicians, doctors, nurses, LPNs, physiotherapist, dentists, registered psychiatric nurses, dental hygienist, audiologist, nutritionist, respiratory therapists, even midwives, chiropractors, medical sonographers and cardiology technicians. There is a real problem — not only in Canada but throughout the world. We have had pleas from other jurisdictions asking us not to go out and plunder when we see that there is a problem in the health care systems in other jurisdictions.

For example, in British Columbia, there has been a plea from the Health minister there not to come in and try to take their health care professionals. That would be very difficult to do anyway, because we are competing with B.C. just like we are competing with Alaska, Alberta and every other jurisdiction in Canada for health professionals. The southern universities have answered some of that. They have increased the number of seats that they have, not only for doctors but for nurses as well.

And that’s only after a great deal of pressure. There was almost a surplus of medical professionals in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. So at that time, the number of seats at the universities went down. The ability to increase the number of seats available for students has become very, very difficult. The reason for that is that the deans have had to go out and recruit members of the faculty when there are not the people available any more because those members who had previously been at university are now working in the field or have retired or indeed are doing completely different things with their medical background.

So it has been an uphill battle. The answer is not just to increase the number of seats. The answer is to also increase the number of faculty members and to encourage people to stay within academia so that we can increase those numbers of seats. And this is an important issue, Mr. Speaker, in that — although unintentionally, I gather, from the members opposite — it’s good to hear that we are discussing this very, very important issue today and I’m glad to have been given the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, after nursing, medicine is the second-largest regulated health profession. In 2000, there were more than 57,800 physicians in clinical and non-clinical practice in Canada, which was up 5.3 percent since 1996. Once again, this is due to the increase in the number of seats, which has just happened recently. During this period, the number of specialists grew more than did the number of family doctors, which is also good to hear, Mr. Speaker, because when there is a problem with recruiting, the most difficult problem is getting the specialists. For many, many years, our specialists abandoned Canada and moved to the United States, where they have taken up very lucrative practices. But as of 2000, the specialists in Canada accounted for just under half of all physicians, at 49.6 percent.

Of course, growth patterns have differed across Canada. Between 1996 and 2000, the Northwest Territories had the largest estimated increase in the number of physicians per 100,000 population. Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland also saw a substantial growth. In Alberta, Quebec, B.C., New Brunswick and P.E.I., the increases were smaller. While physician rates increased in the majority of the country, they were relatively stable in Ontario. At that time, in the year 2000, they fell in the Yukon.

Since then, of course, Mr. Speaker, there has been an increase in the number of physicians in the Yukon Territory. But between 1999 and 2000, Nunavut also experienced a decrease.

The absolute number of licensed physicians is one important factor in understanding physician supply. There are many others. Physicians perform duties other than clinical care, such as administration, teaching and research. As a result, it is important to consider the number of physicians providing the different types of services, not just the total number with licences.

Once again, that’s as I was speaking about. When those physicians who were teaching — the ones with their PhDs were teaching — in the various faculties and then were laid off, they went on to other things. That was a great loss for all of us.

There are other factors, of course, that affect recruitment and retention of physicians in Canada. Gender, age, specialty, the size of the community, the place of graduation, the clinical demands, the average workload and personal characteristics — they can affect physician supply. A recent support found that 15 to 20 percent of physicians receiving fee-for-service payments for clinical services are inactive for at least three months of the fiscal year, which means that they’re off on sabbaticals or out trying to get a lifestyle back for themselves. I know that many of our Yukon physicians work many long hours and that is extremely difficult physically, emotionally, psychologically and intellectually.

They need a break. The situation is more common in women’s positions, of course, who have to take those breaks for childbearing and other purposes — particularly women in the rural areas.

Despite those periods of inactivity of up to three months a year, the average workload for positions across Canada is increasing. In fact, they have been increasing since 1993 and 1994, particularly in the areas of primary care and surgical specialties.

Mr. Speaker, it’s really difficult to go through and try to find the perfect answer for recruitment and retention, because it depends on personal factors. Each person who comes to the Yukon comes for different reasons. Many of us here, of course, were either born here or brought here by our parents, so we didn’t make the choice to come to the Yukon — we were just here. But for other professionals, they make an active choice to come to a place that is usually thousands of miles from their homes, and about which they know very little, and that takes a great deal of courage.

I’ve often thought that people who travel to our country from other places and take up careers have tremendous courage. I don’t know if I would be as willing to go to a place where they may or may not speak my first language, and where the customs and culture are very different from what I’m used to. I have to give people credit for doing that.

Most health professionals provide direct or indirect services to patients.

Speaker:   Order please. The minister has two minutes to conclude.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Mr. Speaker, whether it’s directly or indirectly providing medical health care to Yukoners, it’s important to look at the issue of recruitment and retention. This is something we will continue to work on with the Yukon Medical Association and with other groups, such as other health professionals like the lab techs association — I have recently struck a partnership with them to work on these issues — as well as the Yukon Registered Nurses Association and the Yukon Advisory Committee on Nursing, or YACON, with whom I’ve met once. I’ll be meeting with them again, and they will be having a series of meetings over the next year to come up with some very practical and reasonable ways we can recruit and retain nurses, and the Yukon Medical Association will work with us to recruit and retain medical professionals here in the Yukon Territory. We will continue our work.

Thank you to that side opposite for bringing forward this important motion today.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, I think it’s a sad day that, when time is short for debate on the rest of the bills and the budget that’s in place, this government has to play a silly game because the House leader on the government side could not come to an agreement on what should be debated on the floor of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have asked the government side to bring forward the Electoral Boundaries Act, 2002, and the government refuses to do that and puts it as the last item on the paper. We would like the legislative office here to get to work on that bill so we can be prepped and work can be done now, rather than later, on the Electoral Boundaries Act, 2002. That hasn’t taken place.

This is a Tuesday. Normally, Wednesday is motion day. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the leader of the official opposition that debate be now adjourned.

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. McLachlan:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Keenan:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Mr. Jim:   Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:   Agree.

Mr. Roberts:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 16 yea, nil nay.

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

Motion to adjourn debate on Motion No. 31 agreed to

Clerk:   Motion No. 37, standing in the name of Mr. McLarnon.

Motion No. 37

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McLarnon:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 50, standing in the name of Mr. McLarnon.

Motion No. 50

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McLarnon:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 54, standing in the name of Mr. Fentie.

Motion No. 54

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Fentie:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day, please, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 64, standing in the name of Mr. McLarnon.

Motion No. 64

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McLarnon:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 80, standing in the name of Mr. Fentie.

Motion No. 80

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Fentie:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 83, standing in the name of Mr. McRobb.

Motion No. 83

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McRobb:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 89, standing in the name of Mr. McRobb.

Motion No. 89

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McRobb:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 97, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Amendment moved by Mr. Fentie; adjourned debate, the hon. Mr. Eftoda.

Motion No. 97 — adjourned debate on amendment

Speaker:   The motion before the House, moved by the Member for Klondike, is — and for the record I will repeat it:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the five-point plan put forward by the resource users coalition group to correct the deficiencies in the Yukon protected areas strategy should be adopted by the Yukon Liberal government and include the following provisions:

(1) give the secretariat supporting the Yukon protected areas strategy independent status so that it is not tied to either the Department of Renewable Resources or the Department of Economic Development;

(2) conduct full scale assessments of the economic impacts of protecting a particular area in addition to the full scale environmental assessments that are currently being done;

(3) establish a cap on the total amount of area that can be protected under the strategy;

(4) guarantee access to land that may be blocked through the creation of a protected area; and

(5) create no more protected areas until the completion of the seven outstanding Yukon Indian land claims agreements.

The amendment moved by the Member for Watson Lake:

THAT Motion No. 97 be amended by deleting all the words from "THAT it is the opinion of this House" to the word "provisions" inclusive and substituting for them the following:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Yukon Liberal government should initiate meetings with the seven coalition members who have refused to participate in the Public Advisory Committee on the Yukon protected areas strategy with a goal of establishing meaningful dialogue between all the partners in the YPAS process and to honour the commitment of the Yukon Liberal government to give consideration to the following provisions:"

Adjourned debate. The hon. Minister of Environment has six minutes remaining. Does any other member wish to be heard?

Are you prepared for the question on the amendment?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:   Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   Disagree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:   Disagree.

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   Disagree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Kent:   Disagree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Keenan:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Mr. Jim:   Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:   Agree.

Mr. Roberts:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are nine yea, seven nay.

Speaker:   The ayes have it. I declare the amendment carried.

Amendment to Motion No. 97 agreed to

Speaker:   Is there any further debate on the motion as amended?

Mr. McLarnon:   I move that this debate now be adjourned.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Member for Whitehorse Centre that debate be now adjourned.

Debate on Motion No. 97 accordingly adjourned

Clerk:   Motion No. 102, standing in the name of Mr. McRobb.

Motion No. 102

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McRobb:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 115, standing in the name of Mr. Fentie.

Motion No. 115

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Fentie:   I defer this debate for the next sitting day, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 118, standing in the name of Mr. McRobb.

Motion No. 118

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McRobb:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 131, standing in the name of Mr. Fentie.

Motion No. 131

Speaker:  Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. Fentie:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Withdrawal of motion

Speaker:   Order please. It has been drawn to the Chair’s attention that Motion No. 141 is obsolete. The Chair therefore orders Motion No. 141 withdrawn from the Order Paper.

Clerk:   Motion No. 143, standing in the name of Mr. McRobb.

Motion No. 143

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McRobb:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 145, standing in the name of Mr. McRobb.

Motion No. 145

Speaker:   Is the hon. member prepared to proceed?

Mr. McRobb:   I wish to defer this to the next sitting day, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   So ordered.

Clerk:   Motion No. 149, standing in the name of Mr. McLarnon; amendment moved by Mr. Fairclough; adjourned debate, hon. Mr. Eftoda.

Motion No. 149 — adjourned debate on amendment

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Member for Whitehorse Centre:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Yukon Liberal Party made a commitment to Yukoners that, if elected, a Liberal government would replace the Grey Mountain Primary School;

(2) the leader of the official opposition has brought forward a motion encouraging the Yukon Liberal government to replace the Grey Mountain Primary School;

(3) while all three political parties in the Yukon have made the commitment to replace the Grey Mountain Primary School, the Yukon Liberal government is the only government to have followed through on this commitment; and

THAT this House commends the Yukon Liberal government for having the courage to do what they said they would do by allocating the appropriate resources in the 2002-03 capital budget this fall to begin the necessary planning and design work for this school replacement project.

Amendment moved by the leader of the official opposition that Motion No. 149 be amended in the final clause by deleting the words after the phrase "that this House" and substituting for it the words "supports the Yukon Liberal government in allocating the appropriate resources in the 2002-03 capital budget to begin the necessary planning and design work for this school replacement project, provided that elementary school enrolment in Whitehorse warrants it and no other elementary schools in Whitehorse are closed as a result."

Adjourned debate, the hon. Minister of Environment.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker:   About 15 minutes. We’ll confirm that.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:   In light of the announcement that was made today, it is with pleasure that I continue the debate on this motion because, first and foremost, it’s children we’re talking about. It’s children who, for a substantive number of years, have been housed in a group of buildings commonly known as mobile units. In one way, this has been a good thing for the school, in that it has maintained smaller class sizes relative to regular classrooms in larger, more permanent buildings.

Over the years, this has perpetuated an incredible number of students who have moved out of Grey Mountain School with skills and abilities that have sustained them through the rest of their education period.

Smaller class sizes, we know, with incredibly skilled and competent teachers will allow students to get a more qualified and quality education. The downside though, relative to Grey Mountain School and these units, is they are very old indeed. As a matter of fact, the previous government recognized that when they proceeded with the replacement of the school in Mayo for the same reasons. Many students were housed in mobile units that were starting to fall around the children’s feet: mouldy carpets, mouldy under-story, mouldy walls, so that the environment wasn’t sustained in a healthy manner to educate children.

The former government did move forward in allocating financial resources to replace the school in Mayo. The school’s design is award winning, and I am sure that the students in Mayo are looking forward wholeheartedly to moving into their new school next year.

I would ask members of the opposition why the Grey Mountain situation, with their mobile units, very old, starting to become tattered — well, they are tattered. They are literally being held together with tape. The thing is that these students deserve no less than any other student in the territory.

So, during the last election, as have previous governments, we promised to replace the school. We promised as well, Mr. Speaker, during the last election and we’re following through on that promise; we’re following through on that commitment. But I must say, despite the allegations made by the members opposite, something that I most definitively learned over the past couple of years is exactly the quality of education that these students are getting in Grey Mountain School.

Despite the challenges that the school itself has had over the past dozen or so years of promises made by previous governments and broken continuously, despite the ageing of the portable units, parents are committed to the school and continue to send their children there, kindergarten to grade 3. They are committed to the school and they’re committed to the resources that are contained within the school, namely our educators. Our educators are highly skilled and very, very dedicated to the students who attend Grey Mountain Primary School.

So despite the transgressions that have been heaped on the school over the years, we are following through on our commitment and replacing it because it is for the students; it’s for the quality of education.

The question we heard in Question Period today was that we should be looking at transposing the success within the Grey Mountain School — recognizing the success of Grey Mountain School — into other schools that we are hearing have capacity for the same situation to be attempted in those schools.

So I do believe that there has been an instruction that we look at transferring the success of the K-to-3 program at Grey Mountain into other schools, utilizing the capacity that is now in some of our elementary schools, not only in Whitehorse but in other parts of the territory. Because if there’s anything that I’ve learned with respect to education over the past couple of years being in government, it is that the better grounding that students can get in K to 3 — the individualized attention, the quality of education that they get — will sustain them through the rest of their schooling years.

So, Mr. Speaker, recognizing the success of Grey Mountain — I think it’s incumbent upon this government, as well as any government, that we substitute the success of that program throughout. It’s about the quality of education; it’s about giving the best that we can to our students, whether they’re here in Whitehorse or whether they’re in the communities. It’s about listening to what parents have to say, the dedication that they have to their community schools. It’s about the dedicated resources that are housed in these schools.

That whole combination is what has sustained and perpetuated the success within Grey Mountain School over all these years.

Speaker:   Order please. The Chair now has the time straightened around, and the minister has two minutes, please, to conclude.

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Quorum count

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

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Mr. Speaker, I request you call quorum.

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

The bells are turned on.

Bells

Speaker:   I have shut the bells off and will do a count. There are 17 members present. A quorum is present, and we’ll continue debate. The hon. Minister of Environment has two minutes to conclude.

Some Hon. Member: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Point of order

Speaker:   The hon. government House leader, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   Mr. Speaker, I would request a recess of approximately 10 minutes so that the House leaders may reach an agreement.

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. McLachlan:   We request a recess until House leaders can reach an agreement on settling the business of the House.

Speaker:   Given the circumstances in the House here today, I am inclined to support that. However, before making that decision, once again, it’s imperative that I ask the House leaders for their consideration.

Mr. McRobb:   It’s about time that we have the government House leader realizing that this afternoon is a waste of time unless something concrete is offered.

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Mr. McRobb:   Well, he’s antagonizing me across the floor, Mr. Speaker, and that’s not very parliamentary.

So anyway, it’s about time the government realizes it’s in a minority situation. We on this side are willing to work with the government to resolve this dispute.

Speaker:   Leader of the third party, on the point of order.

Mr. Jenkins:   The suggestion of the government House leader is a very valid one. I might like to point out, though, that we did reach agreement previously. It was an excellent offer that was offered to the government House leader. Either he refused to explain it satisfactorily to his caucus, or couldn’t, and we are back at an impasse once again. I would encourage the Speaker to put a timeline on the amount of time allocated for us to reach an agreement. I don’t see the advantage to having unlimited time, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   We have 30 minutes left in the sitting today.

Member for Whitehorse Centre, on the point of order.

Mr. McLarnon:   Just to make sure — I am a House leader and I want to make sure that is known. The independents have no problem with this. I am glad that the government understands that these kind of procedures can happen in perpetuity, forever in this House. As a result, we need to come to an agreement to break this.

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

Hon. Ms. Tucker:   On a point of order, my understanding is that the government side has been approached by the opposition to ask to restart negotiations, and I wanted to clarify that for the record, that they are prepared to be cooperative and collaborative and to seek constructive solution and that this is the first that they have indicated that they were prepared to move.

Speaker’s ruling

Speaker:   There is no point of order here. The Chair believes that there is cooperation here for a recess, and I will order the House recess until 5:45 p.m.

Recess

Speaker:   I will now call the House to order.

If the members will just allow the Chair here to clear up some business. Regarding Motion No. 149, there is an error on the Order Paper. The amendment has been previously negatived at an earlier time — so the debate that was taking place was actually on the motion, not on the amendment. So we’ll just clear that up so everybody knows.

The Minister of Environment still had two minutes remaining for his debate.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I recommend to the House that we now adjourn.

Unanimous consent re adjourning debate

Speaker:   Can the House have unanimous consent that the record shows that the Minister of Environment adjourned debate on Motion No. 149?

All Hon. Members:  Agree.

Speaker:   Unanimous consent has been granted.

Debate on Motion No. 149 accordingly adjourned

It has been moved by the Premier that the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to

Speaker:   The House now stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

The following Sessional Papers were tabled May 28, 2002:

02-02-155

Yukon Geographical Place Names Board 2000-01 Annual Report (Eftoda)

02-02-156

Motor Transport Board 2000-01 Annual Report (Kent)

02-02-157

Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board: Report by Ted Hughes, Q.C, requested by the President and Chief Executive Officer of the YWH&SB regarding a statement made on April 17, 2002 in the Yukon Legislative Assembly (dated May 23, 2002) (Edelman)

The following Legislative Return was tabled May 28, 2002:

02-02-126

Rural Roads Upgrade Projects: project amounts (by community) approved 1998 to 2001 (Kent)

Oral, Hansard, p. 3623