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

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      It is with deep respect and great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to the Reverend Deacon Effie Mary Linklater, who passed away peacefully in Old Crow on November 24, 2000.

Born to Neil and Julia McDonald on December 27, 1915, the Reverend Linklater was the granddaughter of Archdeacon Robert McDonald and the eldest of seven children.

Together with her husband, Archie Linklater, whom she married in August 1931, she raised seven children and two grandchildren.

It was the strength of her heritage, the traditional lifestyle she enjoyed, the love of her family, the faith of her friends, and her devotion to God that brought Mrs. Linklater to the pinnacle of her life.

As a young teen, she had expressed an interest in doing church work but marriage and family took precedence. She began her formal church work in 1981 and was ordained as a deacon in January 1989 at St. Simon's Anglican Church, the Old Log Church in Whitehorse.

Effie Linklater touched the lives of many people, devoting much of her time and energy spreading the word of God throughout Yukon communities. Bishop Terry Buckle remembers her dedicated, committed life and her care for people, especially her fondness for the people of Ross River, with whom she worked for a time. It was her gentle spirit and keen sense of humor that attracted young and old alike to share the warmth and wisdom of her presence. And just being in her presence was an experience. She didn't have to say anything. She radiated an inner peace and happiness. I am really going to miss her.

Many Yukoners do not realize that she was instrumental and a pioneer in the development of the territorial ski-training program undertaken by Father Mouchet in Old Crow in the early 1960s. In large part, her countless hours of volunteer work contributed to the pride and distinction felt by the Vuntut Gwitchin athletes, some of whom went on to represent the Yukon in cross-country skiing championships.

There is one of many special places that the Vuntut Gwitchin call their own, and that is Crow Flats. It was there that Mrs. Linklater found her serenity - or in her words, "the best medicine" for her. There she relaxed and thoroughly enjoyed the fresh, clean air, long walks, listening to the birds, watching muskrats swim and the beauty of her surroundings. She marvelled at how close to God she felt whenever she was there. So now we say goodbye to yet another respected elder. Those who knew her or knew of her and those of us who loved her wish her a beautiful journey.

Thank you.

Ms. Netro:      On behalf of the official opposition it is my honour today to pay a special tribute to Effie Linklater. She passed away peacefully on Friday, November 24, 2000, in Old Crow. She was born to Shitzie Neil and Shitzoo Julia McDonald on December 27, 1915. She was the granddaughter of Archdeacon McDonald and she was the eldest of seven children.

To many of us, she was our quiet, strong, support to her unspoken love and her prayers. She was always encouraging us to meet our challenges with dignity and upholding our strong Gwitchin values.

Auntie Effie devoted much of her time spreading the word of God throughout the Yukon and to many of the places where she travelled. She touched the lives of many.

We appreciated her support and admired her courage and her strength. She was a great teacher and her lessons will always remain close in our hearts. Her leadership in her services to the church reinforce in us that faith is the foundation for our personal and professional lives.

She leaves us a living legacy that life out on the land is part of our spiritual healing. She loved to share her stories about her time out on the land with us.

Our lives have been really enriched because of the time she spent with us. She will be sadly missed by her family and friends throughout this nation. However, we know she is in a good place.

Mahsi'cho.

Speaker:      Are there any introductions of visitors?

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Netro:      It is my pleasure today to bring our attention to the gallery, to some of the visitors that we have today from Old Crow.

First, I would like to introduce Chief Joe Linklater, my nephew Greg Charlie, my fiancé Ernie Peter, my friend and relative, Lu Tizya, her daughter Erika, Linda Netro, and her husband Chuck Hendrie.

Speaker:      Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, I have a legislative return to Mr. Gary McRobb, November 30, home care support.

I have a second legislative return on compassionate travel to Mr. Gary McRobb on the same date.

I have a third legislative return to Mr. Gary McRobb on group homes and operating cost and number of people housed.

I have a fourth legislative return on senior elder care facility for Haines Junction for Mr. McRobb on November 30.

I also have the following: another legislative return on child care subsidy for Mr. McRobb, again, on November 30; another legislative return on the pioneer utility grant for Mr. McRobb; another legislative return on the Haines Junction community consultation regarding physician services for Mr. McRobb; another legislative return on the Technical Review Committee, again for Mr. McRobb; and the final legislative return on the Canadian health and social transfer, again for Mr. McRobb for the same date.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling the Yukon Housing Corporation's annual report for the year ended March 31, 2000.

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. Fairclough:      I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) the settlement and implementation of outstanding land claims is essential for the economic, social and political well-being of the Yukon Territory; and

(2) the Yukon Liberal Government has identified the settlement of land claims as its top priority; and

(3) transboundary land claims involving the Yukon and British Columbia require particular attention to address the issues of reciprocity between the two jurisdictions; and

(4) settlement of these transboundary claims will require clear negotiating mandates from the political leadership of all governments involved; and

(5) it is in the interests of the Yukon that all other affected parties make substantive progress on these land claims while there is a government in British Columbia that is committed to the treaty-making process; and

THAT this House urges the Premier to meet with the Premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on a priority basis, to develop a mutually-agreeable process for negotiating a successful resolution to these transboundary claims for the benefit of all parties.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that a large, overweight, bearded man wearing a red and white suit and riding in a sleigh driven by reindeer, one of which has a red nose, should visit the home of every little boy and girl living in Yukon on December 25, 2000.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Chair:  Are there any further notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I am pleased to advise the House and to bring all members up to date that the B.C./Yukon reciprocal fishing agreement has been completed. As noted in my previous statement in November, I advised that I would be announcing the details in conjunction with my counterpart in British Columbia. This announcement took place yesterday. This is the first transboundary lake agreement signed by British Columbia. Renewable Resources staff have worked hard and diligently to get this agreement in place. We hope that this will lead to other cooperative agreements.

Starting April 1, 2001, Yukoners who hold a valid Yukon freshwater fishing licence will be able to fish in all parts of Lake Bennett, Laidlaw, Morley, Tagish and Teslin lakes, as well as the Rancheria and Swift rivers and their tributaries without having to obtain a separate B.C. fishing licence. I am sure the anglers of the Yukon will be pleased that this long-awaited agreement is in place. It will certainly be appreciated by those Yukoners with recreation properties on these lakes.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:      I would like to, first of all, thank the minister for recognizing yet another fantastic NDP initiative, hook, line and sinker. It's too bad that they didn't bite on other initiatives like the Mayo school or winter works, Mr. Speaker. However, today the government issued a joint press release, so I would question the need to use valuable House time for what is essentially a reannouncement.

We in this House already discussed a ministerial statement on this same matter on November 8. It was interesting to note that, at that time, the minister promised a joint press release within a week. So, perhaps an apology is in order for being several weeks late.

It really looks like this Liberal government has dried up on any new announcements this year and doesn't have anything substantial to say. For the past month and a half, the Liberals have been wasting the time of this House. Obviously, it would be hoping for too much to expect them to improve on what is, hopefully, the last day of this sitting.

Does this minister expect to bring in a ministerial statement and a Liberal press release every time a fishing regulation is passed or, perhaps, whenever a fish is caught, Mr. Speaker, or maybe whenever the big one gets away?

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this government has let the big one slip away all right, by sitting on a $64-million surplus and by failing to provide Yukoners with jobs this winter.

Mr. Jenkins:      This ministerial statement says nothing new. It just confirms what we knew was going to happen. Perhaps it would be more appropriate now for the minister to make arrangements for that fishing licence issued in the Yukon to be valid in Alberta, as we have more and more Yukoners moving to Alberta all the time - more than ever before, Mr. Speaker.

Why don't we now concentrate on the other initiatives with B.C. that are causing an impediment for Yukoners, such as on motor transport so truckers can operate in B.C. in the same manner as B.C. truckers can operate in the Yukon.

To reannounce an announcement that has been announced before - and that's probably referred to in this House as the Trevor Harding amendment - is one thing, but let's get on to the proper business.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The member opposite, the Member for Klondike, is absolutely right. And we are hoping, and we have full confidence, that this government will be able to make further agreements and announcements in this House with respect to additional agreements with B.C. in the future.

This agreement, though, has been dangled in front of Yukoners since 1995, and we've completed the deal. We landed it, Mr. Speaker. I am shocked and amazed - I'll say that again. I have taken lessons from the Minister of Tourism. I am shocked and amazed at the conduct and comments of the Member for Kluane. Oh, I forgot a word - and I am astonished that the members opposite are fishing for credit for this agreement.

I would like to point out to the members opposite that both the Yukon Party and the NDP governments missed the boat by failing to reel in any agreement. For more than five years, Yukoners have been on the hook, waiting for this deal to be struck. We on this side of the House - we, the Liberals - have got that agreement. We have reeled in the big one. Yukon anglers will be pleased that we have netted the deal, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:      This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fentie:      My question today is for the minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development.

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government has been left with a sizeable surplus of $64 million. There's a great need in this territory for people to go to work this winter. The official opposition has brought forward a very well-thought-out supplementary budget, with the community development fund injection of $2 million. Will this minister follow that example, bring forward another supplementary with a $2-million injection into the community development fund, which will put Yukoners across this territory to work this winter?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to answer this question yet again for the Member for Watson Lake.

This government has, as tabled in the supplementary budget recently in this House, in excess of a $30-million deficit. It is a level of spending that is unsustainable. While the member opposite says that they are well-thought-out, to use his words, when the supplementary was tabled in this House, that supplementary was ruled out of order. If it was so well-thought-out, it would have been in order.

This government is managing the budget of the Yukon - the taxpayers' dollars of the Yukon - wisely. And we are managing them in a manner that builds on our priorities: settling land claims; devolution; rebuilding Yukon's economy, which includes jobs for Yukoners; and dealing with such issues of priority to Yukoners as health care and education.

Question re:  Fire smart program

Mr. Fentie:      Well, that answer was no to all those Yukoners who are in desperate need of work this winter. So, let me try again with this minister.

The fire smart program is a proven successful vehicle to put Yukoners to work in this territory. Again, the supplementary budget that the official opposition has a million-dollar injection into the fire smart program. This million-dollar injection, at approximately $50,000 per application, would put 20 applications into service, which would equate six workers per application to 100 Yukoners working for four months this winter across this territory.

Will this minister do the right thing, take a million dollars out of that significant and substantial surplus and put a million dollars into the fire smart program to put those 180 Yukoners to work this winter? Yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, will this minister do the right thing and manage the territory's finances in a way that is sustainable, that looks to rebuilding Yukon's economy? Absolutely. That's what this minister is doing.

I would remind the member opposite that we have tabled an annual deficit in excess of $33 million. That equates to a deficit budget of $1,000 for every individual in the Yukon, and that level of spending is unsustainable. The member opposite stands up and says, "Well, just add a million dollars to that. Just add to what is an unsustainable level of spending and don't worry about and don't bother with the very good work your government is doing in terms of working with First Nations, working with other Yukoners, to ensure that there is oil and gas exploration work this winter, that there is ongoing work in the exploration field with the mining community, that there is ongoing work in terms of film production and commercial production in the Yukon, and that there is a sustainable economy in the Yukon."

That's what we're working on. We are rebuilding the Yukon's economy.

Question re:   Land claims, creation of parks

Mr. Jenkins:      I have a question today for the Premier.

At the 28^th Geoscience Forum held in Whitehorse on November 30, the Premier was quoted as saying, "We're focusing our attention as a government on positive action that will renew the mining industry so that it can be a key contributor to our economic well-being. Our government is listening to what you have to say, eager to hear from you, and most of all we are looking forward to working with you."

Now, at the very time that the Premier was uttering those words, she was aware that 2,739 square kilometres were being withdrawn from staking and a new park was being created, which included mining claims owned by Archer Cathro.

When I asked the Premier on December 12 about more bad news for the mining industry and having yet more mining claims engulfed by parks or special management areas in the six other unresolved settlements, the Premier admitted, through her silence, that this was going to happen.

When is the Premier going to tell the mining industry this bad news? Will it be after the Cordilleran Roundup and her attendance there, announcing that she is all buddy-buddy with the mining industry? When is it going to be?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, the very premise of the member opposite's question is incorrect. My silence can be interpreted as complete disgust with the member opposite's question, Mr. Speaker, because the member has put a misinterpretation on my non-answer.

The member opposite is trying to suggest that this government does not support land claims when, in fact, it's the member opposite. The member opposite is referring to the Asi Keyi special management area, which was negotiated as part of the Kluane First Nation land claim - one of seven outstanding land claims that this government is working very hard to resolve.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, there's a word for a person who says one thing and then does the opposite, but I can't use that word in the House here today, Mr. Speaker. It's unparliamentary.

Does the Premier view the inclusion of mining claims in parks as part of a positive action that will renew the mining industry, when she mentions that in her speech to the Geoscience Forum?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      This Premier and this government are very committed to the settlement of land claims, as is the mining industry, I might add. And I would invite the member opposite to listen very carefully to what the mining industry has to say.

The special management area - the Kluane First Nation land claim - is part of the settlement of that land claim. It is a settlement that we're working toward, which the member opposite clearly does not support.

Mr. Jenkins:      On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we're very supportive of the settlement of First Nation land claims, but what we want is the minister to be up front with all parties. That's all.

Now, let's look at Archer Cathro. They voluntarily gave up their mining claims in the Tombstone area and they now have more of their claims being included in this new Asi Keyi Park.

Will the minister be apologizing to Archer Cathro for the manner that the mining situation is being addressed here in the Yukon? Will she at least do that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The only individuals who deserve an apology are members of this House, for the member opposite's comments about them. The issue for us as legislators is to deal with the issues of policy. And the policy of this government and our commitment is to the settlement of seven outstanding land claims - and that is what we are doing. One of those land claims includes a special management area known as the Asi Keyi - or Grandfather's Place - special management area. It is part of the settlement of a land claim and the member opposite has tried repeatedly in this House to suggest that we tear that up, that we not sign, that we somehow not proceed with the commitment that was made at the land claims table. That, to me, Mr. Speaker, speaks volumes about that member opposite's lack of understanding and lack of appreciation for this land claim, which is very important.

Question re:   Alaska Highway pipeline project training programs

Ms. Netro:      My question is for the Minister of Education. The Yukon's changing economy will require workers to develop a variety of new job skills. If the Alaska Highway pipeline becomes a reality, specialized training to create a skilled Yukon workforce will need to start soon. The official opposition's supplementary budget allocated $900,000 for a new training trust fund so that the Yukon workers will be ready for the new economic opportunities.

Will the minister support a new supplementary budget that would set aside $900,000 from the $64-million accumulated surplus for training trust funds, so that training programs can start this winter?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, we have already, as the Premier has indicated, decided on the supplementary supplied by the members opposite. But I would like to assure the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin that I have already been in contact and in dialogue with advanced education and with the Yukon College in consideration and preparation for training needs when the pipeline is decided to come down the Alaska Highway.

Question re:  Roadside vegetation clearing

Mr. McRobb:      My question is for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. The supplementary budget tabled by the NDP opposition contains a new $400,000 winter works program named the roadside visual hazards clearing program. This program would employ hundreds of Yukoners in cropping tall vegetation and clearing other visual hazards alongside our Yukon roads this winter. It would also make driving our roads much safer.

This government inherited an accumulated surplus of $64 million. Will the minister do whatever is necessary to bring an immediate supplementary budget to support a roadside visual hazard clearing program - yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      As the Member for Kluane knows well, we're in the budget planning process right now, and brushing and clearing along the highways is one of the subjects that will be under discussion.

Question re:  Pioneer utility grant increase

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, as established by the Auditor General of Canada, this government has a surplus of $64 million at the beginning of this fiscal year. And I'd say that as the lapses come in they will have at least that much at the end of the upcoming fiscal year.

Now, seniors and elders throughout the Yukon Territory are facing skyrocketing fuel costs, and they're still rising, Mr. Speaker. That's to heat their homes, as you're well aware. Now, the official opposition's alternative budget included $150,000 to increase the pioneer utility grant to help out these seniors and these folks in need. Now, there is no reason for this Liberal government to ignore the needs of our older citizens.

So I'd like to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services a simple question: will the minister support a $150,000 increase in the supplementary budget for the pioneer utility grant to help the seniors and elders this winter? It is a simple question, requiring a simple answer - yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, for clarification, it would appear that the members opposite are doing a summary of this session of all the questions they have asked. Because, I guess, in a half hour, those are all the questions that they asked for the six weeks that we have been in session.

We keep hearing about the surplus of $64 million or whatever it is. We have a deficit budget of $33.8 million that has to come off that $64 million. I think the members opposite constantly -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      No, the Auditor General did say that there was a surplus, but also we have a deficit budget, caused by the government of yesterday. So we have to pay the bills. So we don't have a surplus of $64 million. I know that you're trying to give that impression to the public, but it's not there.

We are looking at the seniors utility grant, Mr. Speaker, because we recognize that some of our seniors are in very troubled times. But we have to look at it, Mr. Speaker, along with all the other energy factors that are affecting a lot of people in the territory.

Yes, we are addressing and looking at it at this point. We haven't made a decision on it, but that will be forthcoming.

Question re:  Education, pre-employment training

Ms. Netro:      My question today is for the Minister of Education. Young people who have less school often have special educational needs before they can get worthwhile jobs, or even qualify for specialized job training. These young people might need to learn basic life skills or improve their literacy levels. For example, our alternative supplementary budget addressed this need for a $350,000 investment in youth pre-employment programs.

Since the government inherited a $64-million accumulated surplus, does the minister support the investment of $350,000 to support young Yukon people to get pre-employment training this winter?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I do thank the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin for the question. And she is absolutely right when she says that there is a $64-million surplus, but the fact remains that we are running on a deficit budget of $33.8 million. We are accepting that. That is the budget that we inherited and have adopted as our own. So we are taking responsibility for that.

With respect to the question that she just asked, there are approximately 600 students in our education system who have special needs in some way, shape or form. And with all due credit to our educators, our teachers and their capabilities, attention to these needs is being applied as we speak today - and much credit to their skills and abilities to do that. So we are looking at ways to improve that service and to address the needs identified by the member.

Question re:  Seniors winter home support program

Mr. Keenan:      I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Now, the Minister of Health and Social Services, just a few moments ago, stood on his feet and basically said that the top watchdog of Canada was full of beans. I would suggest that it is exactly the opposite - exactly the opposite.

I would like to ask him about an adult winter home support program. This new program was designed to allow seniors and those with disabilities to receive support and remain at home, where they are most secure and most needed - within their families. It would allow a senior to call and say, "I need my wood chopped" or "I need my driveway plowed" or "I just need simple help" or "I need company." And they would be able to send that bill to the government under established terms.

Now, would this minister support a supplemental investment of $300,000 in an adult winter home support program? And, again, this is a simple question requiring a simple answer.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      For the record, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite doesn't always say it the way I said it. I said very clearly that there is a surplus of $64 million. I said that, but I also said that we have a deficit budget of $33.8 million. The members opposite never mention the deficit. They're always mentioning the surplus and they have to realize that we have to pay our bills. VISA has come in.

Mr. Speaker, as far as introducing a supplementary budget, we currently are in a supplementary budget at this point. We are looking at the needs of many people in the Yukon, and we're trying to address those needs. We are hoping that we can respond in a very positive way in trying to meet those needs.

Question re:   Land claims, repayment of loan

Mr. Jenkins:      I have a question once again for the Premier.

Back on November 29 of this year, I presented a motion to the House, which reads as follows: "THAT it is the opinion of this House that Yukon First Nations should not be held solely responsible for causing all the delays in settling Yukon Indian Land Claims because there have been successive changes in government at both federal and territorial levels, changes in comprehensive claims policy and continuing judicial interpretations of aboriginal rights and title over 27 years of negotiation; and THAT this House urges the Government of Canada and the Government of Yukon to accept their share of responsibility for causing delays in settling Yukon Indian Land Claims and agree to negotiate an agreement that will enable Yukon First Nations to retain a more equitable portion of their land claims settlement compensation."

The Premier introduced an amendment to that motion, which effectively gutted it, Mr. Speaker, and I would like her to explain now why she thinks it's fair to have Yukon First Nations pay back up to 65 percent of their settlement money to the federal government.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was introduced and the constructive approach that this side took to try to reach an agreement with the other two leaders on that particular motion would have seen the motion come back before the House in a manner that would allow everyone to reach unanimous agreement. We could then do as we have done in the past, which is to support a motion that would go before the federal government and urge them to live up to the commitments that have been made and that the Prime Minister himself made to First Nations when he travelled to Yukon. We are following up on this, as are the First Nations.

This government is very committed to the settlement of seven outstanding land claims and to establishing strong government-to-government relationships with all Yukon First Nations. We have done that in the first eight months that we have been in office, and we will continue to build on that strong relationship, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, nothing could be further from reality than what the minister is suggesting. The issue before us is to put together a motion that would have unanimous support of the House. The amendment being proposed effectively gutted it, and it would have just made the Yukon Liberals more cozy with the federal Liberals. It would have done nothing to move ahead the cause of the land claims settlement here in the Yukon.

I would like the Premier to tell the House how much the Yukon First Nations owe the federal government for negotiating land claims? I am after the amount of money owed, exclusive of the amounts advanced for the social programs - just the amount that they would have to pay back. What is it?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I believe that all Yukoners should be very well aware of the facts surrounding the motion brought forward by the member opposite. The fact is that the motion, as written, was written in such a manner that it effectively was argumentative, and it did not seek solutions; rather, it was extremely abrasive and was, if I may be permitted this somewhat violent language, abusive.

It was not solution seeking.

I indicated to both leaders of the opposition parties that I would have a motion redrafted that perhaps we could examine for support. I pre-empted a meeting I had this morning in order to meet with them at 11:00 a.m. and was advised at that point that, "Oh, did we forget to tell you? It's not happening." That's not solution seeking, Mr. Speaker. That's simply grandstanding for the sake of politics and trying to obfuscate the fact that the member opposite does not really support the settlement of land claims.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, all of the motions that I've moved here have been very constructive motions, had they been accepted. The two major impediments to settlement of the Indian land claims here in the Yukon are the repayment of the loans and section 87. They're both federal issues. Unless there's some movement on these two fronts, we're not going to see any settlement in the short term, Mr. Speaker.

Now, in view of the fact that it's unrealistic to think that Yukon First Nations are going to settle their land claims and pay up to 65 percent of their compensation back to the federal government, this Premier has rejected that proposal. Can she explain what her proposal is to settle these outstanding issues, or does she indeed have one?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, there is an expression, at the risk of sounding like a former member of this House who quoted at us endlessly, "Methinks the member doth protest too much" in terms of his constructive abilities in this House.

Phrases such as "incompetent" and "far from reality" are not constructive, Mr. Speaker, and they are issued endlessly from the member opposite.

With respect to this government's initiatives to settle land claims, we have done a great deal in that particular effort. We have worked with the Grand Chief in terms of the establishment of the common forum. The tables are actively negotiating and working toward solutions.

I have, as I have previously indicated in this House, personally lobbied the Minister of Finance with regard to the issues around taxation, and I have also been an active participant at the principals table. I am working actively, when the Minister of Northern Development is named to the Cabinet, to be among the first in the door on the agenda.

And I have also followed up with the Prime Minister with respect to a letter that the Grand Chief has also followed up with in that regard.

Question re:   J.V. Clark School, construction delay

Mr. Fairclough:      I have a question for the Minister of Education.

We all agree that the people of Mayo have waited long enough for a new school. This government's decision to postpone the project is unfair to the people of Mayo and will not result in the cost-saving that the minister is hoping for.

The official opposition tabled a supplementary budget that included $500,000 to get this project going this winter and it still leaves the government in a sound fiscal position. Will the minister now do the right thing and put $500,000 from the accumulated surplus toward construction of a new school in Mayo?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, we do have a $64-million surplus, but there is also a $33.8-million deficit. The members have continually, continually, espoused to be adding on to that deficit, Mr. Speaker. That's something we, being fiscally responsible, absolutely refuse to do. And I think that if we went beyond the deficit limit that we have now, Yukoners would throw us out in a flash.

Mr. Speaker, we have made the commitment with the community of Mayo. They will have their school. We will be building at the end of March. We will be opening the doors in January 2002. They will have their new school, Mr. Speaker.

Question re:  Street lighting in rural communities

Mr. McRobb:      My question is for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services.

The supplementary budget tabled by the NDP opposition contained $600,000 for rural street lighting for Tagish, Chooutla, Albert Creek and Dawson City. This program would employ several Yukoners this winter and increase safety for Yukon pedestrians and motorists.

This government inherited an accumulated surplus of $64 million. Will the minister do whatever is necessary to bring in an immediate supplementary budget to support the important installation of these street lights - yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      There was, at the beginning of this fiscal year, a $64-million surplus. It was disappearing rapidly by the time this government was sworn in to office. Now there is a $33-million deficit budget for the year that we are trying to deal with. And the member knows that well.

Question re:  Supplementary budget, further spending requests

Mr. Fairclough:      I have a question for the Premier. The supplementary budget that we are debating this sitting has expenditures of $37 million. It does increase the annual deficit for this year, but it also leaves a larger projected surplus than the Liberal government expected when the 2000-01 main estimates were passed. What this supplementary does not do is create jobs for Yukon people this winter, and that is a very serious omission.

As the official opposition, we have offered constructive solutions that would allow this government to address that problem in a fiscally responsible way. After considering these positive alternatives, will the Premier introduce a new supplementary budget to invest $7.7 million in jobs for Yukon people this winter and help the seniors and the elders pay their heating bills this winter? Yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      We are addressing the issues of heating costs and fuel costs for Yukoners. As a caucus, we are addressing them in a thoughtful and fiscally responsible manner. And we are working on that issue, as my colleague, the Minister of Health, has previously indicated.

Now, the member opposite has suggested that the opposition has put forward constructive suggestions. What the member opposite omitted from his question is the fact that the opposition has not heard or chosen to hear our responses, which outline the job creation that is contained in this budget. There are 600-some-odd jobs, which I have outlined in great detail in this supplementary budget, and others as a result of the fiscally responsible work of this government. There is job creation throughout the territory. There is long-term work being undertaken by our government on the Yukon economy, and we are continuing that work. And the results are starting to show.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, that's thanks to the NDP budget that the Liberal government has passed in this House.

Mr. Speaker, they came forward with a throne speech that had nothing in it. It was a hollow vessel with no vision, and continually in this House we hear broken promises. There were promises of introducing and passing the NDP's budget in its entirety and yet we hear those members opposite continually breaking their promises to Yukoners - SA rates, Mayo school, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, they were left with a very healthy bank account - $64 million in the bank, with a projection next year in the surplus of around $45 million at the minimum. It could be as high as $80 million, yet they do not make any movement to create winter works this winter.

Will the Premier do the right thing and introduce another supplementary budget of $7.7 million to create work this winter?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, the NDP math never ceases to amaze me. It is the season of miracles indeed.

The members opposite, particularly the leader opposite, stood and talked about broken promises. Let's talk about the commitments this government made in March and April of this year to Yukoners. Let's talk about our commitment to deal with health care, with substance and alcohol abuse and addictions in our communities, and let's show, Mr. Speaker, that the record reflects $7.5 million in health care spending.

Let's talk about the commitment we made to deal with tough issues that the previous government would not deal with: issues like rebuilding the Yukon's economy, like re-attracting the mining community to Yukon, which we dealt with in terms of the exploration tax credit, as well as the mining incentive program.

Let's talk about young people, who stop me on the street as they are home for their Christmas holidays and say, "Thank you for delivering on that commitment you made to increase students' financial assistance." Let's talk about the tough issue of the Elections Act, which that government stubbornly, stubbornly, would not deal with when they were in government - "No, no, we can't listen to what the opposition has to say, no matter how well-researched." Well, we committed to Yukoners that we would act on it, Mr. Speaker, and we did.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, the figures that we are using and telling the members opposite about are Liberal government figures. $45 million for the 2000-01 surplus is a Liberal figure. So, Mr. Speaker, they can't cry poverty to Yukoners any more. They have a healthy bank account and it is the way they spend that will dictate what we have in the bank account in the future.

It is a shame that they bring forward a $37-million supplementary that increases government O&M and makes government bigger by 6.4 percent, larger than any other main estimate that has been seen in growth of O&M. It is shameful. Yet, they did not concentrate on Yukon people, on-the-ground people, this year.

Mr. Speaker, they were left with a very healthy bank account. There was $64 million -

Speaker:      Order please. Will the member please ask a question.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, will the Premier do the right thing, again, and consider bringing forward - and we will support it - a $7.7-million surplus supplementary to put people to work this winter? People in the communities are expecting this. Will the Premier do the right thing?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, we have done the right thing. For one final time in this final Question Period, the surplus as of March 31, 2000: $63,926,000. That was March 31, 2000. That was months ago. Deficit: $33,817,000. That level of spending is unsustainable.

This isn't about crying poverty; this is about being responsible, open and accountable to Yukoners. I'm so glad the member opposite stood on his feet and criticized us for including in this supplementary budget a negotiated wage settlement - negotiated by the members opposite - for Yukon workers. He stood on his feet and said they weren't Yukoners. That's shameful, Mr. Speaker. They are Yukoners. This supplementary budget includes a negotiated wage settlement, which members opposite have criticized us for, but we're proud of. We work very well with Yukoners, and those Yukoners working for the government are helping us rebuild Yukon's economy by designing programs, working with Yukoners to put Yukoners to work, and helping them find long-term jobs this winter.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker:      Government bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 35, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I move that Bill No. 35, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 35, entitled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 35 implements two very important tax initiatives and it has received the support of the opposition members. It sees the Yukon's personal income tax rate drop from its present 49 percent of basic federal tax to 46 percent of basic federal tax, effective January 1, 2001.

It extends the Yukon mineral exploration tax credit for one more year - to March 31, 2002 - and, Mr. Speaker, it increases the value of the credit from 22 percent of eligible expenditures to 25 percent.

Mr. Speaker, it's critical and many Finance ministers across the country have discussed this at great length, that our tax regime be competitive and attractive to individuals and to businesses.

During the election campaign and after assuming office, we promised we would examine the public finances with a view to ensuring the affordability of these tax reductions. Mr. Speaker, promise committed, promise delivered.

We have done what we said we would do with respect to this tax credit, and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we're delivering on it in a timely manner. We're not waiting until the spring. We're delivering on this now, so that the federal income tax tables will see these improvements. It is critical that it not languish and that it is something that Yukoners will see, beginning in January. And, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Yukoners will be spending the savings locally. I am confident of that.

It increases the disposable income of Yukon taxpayers by over $2 million a year, which is a substantial sum by anyone's measure, Mr. Speaker.

The mineral exploration tax credit is utilized by the industry. And, while some of the exploration would have taken place in any event, this is encouraging to the industry and I have received support from them for this. The passage of this bill is also timely for the mining industry in that it ensures that the certainty is there for the future of the exploration expenditures, which are being determined now. And again I would state that this credit, while figures are still coming in, has proven very popular, Mr. Speaker. The final figures will soon be available in the near future as to just how popular it is. It is a valuable incentive. By introducing this bill and passing it this session, we have provided for the ready implementation of this measure by Revenue Canada. We have done what we set out to do as a government in acting upon this matter quickly, and we appreciate the support from the members opposite.

Mr. Fairclough:      I would like to thank the Premier for bringing forward again another strong NDP initiative. They like to cut ribbons on the backs of the Yukon NDP who have put a lot of effort into things like the windmill and the school in Ross River. They like to go and cut ribbons. And we are proud of the fact that what we had in our budget that they adopted was strong enough in some areas that they would carry out those initiatives. The tax cut is one of them. It was almost predictable how the members would make some ministerial statements about what they are doing, but it follows directly, line by line, the NDP budget that was introduced in the spring.

I would like to thank the member opposite for even expanding upon the mineral exploration tax credit. Those are good things that were introduced by this government. If the Liberals wanted to take it forward and make it better, increase the grants to it - well, great. There is money for that, but not for other places. And those are the questions that we have been asking day after day. When there is a political will on that side of the House, they would increase any budget that they feel necessary, maybe to help their supporters.

In Whitehorse, we can have an increase. Hamilton Boulevard, no problem. The Mayo school is on the back burner and it's a shame that that Premier made promises to the community people and then continually breaks them again and again. Another promise made, another promise broken. That's the way the Liberals work, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this forward. It's a good thing and it just shows the strength of the budget that was introduced by the NDP.

Thank you.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      My comments on third reading covered most aspects of the bill. It's very simple in principle. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it does what we said we would do, in that we said we would examine proposed tax cuts, we would ensure that they were financially affordable for Yukoners, and we delivered on that. We delivered on it in a timely manner. And it also expands upon an initiative with respect to the Yukon mineral exploration tax credit and goes a long way to assisting this industry.

Again, I thank members on all sides of the House for their support for this worthy initiative.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question? Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      I think the ayes have it and I declare the motion carried and that Bill No. 35 has passed this House.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 35 agreed to

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

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

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:  Good afternoon, everybody. I now call Committee of the Whole to order. Do members wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Chair:  We will take a 15-minute recess.

Recess

Chair:  I now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will continue with debate on Bill No. 3, Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01. We are on Justice, community and correctional services - I believe Mr. Jenkins had the floor.

Bill No. 3 - Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01 - continued

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures - continued

On Community and Correctional Services - continued

Mr. Jenkins:      When we left this area yesterday in general debate the minister was having a difficult time coming up with answers to a whole series of questions. I think we started off with the RCMP contract, with some $1.1 million. We learned that it was being spent on raises for the members of the RCMP, which is very well-received, given that their federal Liberal counterparts had had a freeze on wages for the members of the RCMP for some five years. And they have got a lot of catching up to do.

But I guess that what is more important is the amount of members in rural Yukon who are being drawn into Whitehorse. The staffing levels appear to be increasing at the upper levels but not down on the general levels, Mr. Chair. The minister just brushes this off as an internal matter and she is not doing anything about it.

One of the other issues in rural Yukon is the issue surrounding housing costs for the members, and that, under the new regime, has escalated from around $300 a month to some $500 or $600 a month, and now it is up around $1,000 a month, Mr. Chair.

And, at the end of the day, if the RCMP meets its budget goals, the chief superintendent in charge of M Division receives a bonus. So, that's all great, Mr. Chair. But the minister just passed it all off by saying it's internal. Is the minister aware of these situations, and is she prepared to do anything about any of them?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The Member for Klondike had not raised housing costs for RCMP members yesterday. I can look into that.

As for RCMP member ratios and assignments, the assignment of officers is based not just on community population, but also on crime rates. That is why there is variation between communities. Some communities have more officers assigned than others because they have a higher crime rate. Other communities may have more officers assigned in the summer than in the winter, for example, if the crime rate is higher in the summer.

It is true the Yukon does have the highest ratio of police officers in the country. I don't believe that's a bad thing; I believe that's a good thing. We believe each and every community needs to be protected and every Yukon citizen has the right to live in a safe home and in a safe community.

While the bonus for the commanding officer is an internal matter for the RCMP, I can inform the House, Mr. Chair, that this performance bonus forms part of a performance agreement with the RCMP commissioner. The bonus is awarded on the basis of performance, and the bonus can be up to a maximum of one percent of the commanding office's salary.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, we can explore another area that has come to light, and this situation could well rise here in the Yukon, and that's the provision of sidearms or firearms to the auxiliaries. Now, we all know very well that there are amendments forthcoming in the minister's other portfolio, the Motor Vehicles Act, where we'll see highway enforcement officers travelling around with their bullet-proof vests and their big belts with their pepper spray and handcuffs. There's also going to be the flexibility in the law that's being proposed to provide them with handguns, in spite of the minister's position that there are not going to be any handguns.

What is the position of the Minister of Justice regarding the provision of handguns to the RCMP auxiliaries? We've seen it happen in B.C. They've been provided with handguns; now they've been taken away. Does the minister have any position? Is she aware that this is an issue? And what is the policy going to be, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      It isn't an issue in the Yukon. The RCMP has not requested permission for auxiliaries to carry handguns and, to the best of my knowledge, no such initiative is even being considered.

Mr. Jenkins:      It has been considered and it has been acted upon in other jurisdictions in Canada. What is the minister's position should it come to the forefront here? And I am not speculating, Mr. Chair. Should it become apparent that the auxiliaries will be carrying handguns, what is this minister's position as Minister of Justice on that issue?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Jenkins:      It's a hypothetical question for the auxiliary. It's not a hypothetical question for the highway enforcement people. That's interesting, Mr. Chair. In one portfolio the minister has one answer; in another portfolio she has another answer for virtually the identical question - the carrying of sidearms.

Here we have this wonderful Liberal government in Ottawa imposing Bill C-68 upon us all, and more and more we're seeing various agencies of governments carrying sidearms around, Mr. Chair. I don't have any quarrel with the RCMP. They're fully competent, fully trained, and they use their firearms very, very reluctantly. But that is not always the case, if you look at British Columbia and their highway enforcement officers down there, Mr. Chair.

The auxiliary RCMP in British Columbia have actually had their firearms taken away from them. The minister says that it is hypothetical that it will arise here in the Yukon. I would suggest to the minister, au contraire, Mr. Chair. It could very well arise.

We are going to be seeing the highway enforcement officers travelling up and down with their bullet-proof vests and big belts, carrying their pepper spray. Yes, we know that the Prime Minister of Canada only uses pepper on his food. He just orders it to be used in other areas, but here in the Yukon, that's what we're looking at, Mr. Chair. And this minister is sitting idly by at the switch, saying that it's a hypothetical question. Well, I would suggest to the minister that it is not a hypothetical question. It is a very direct question.

We're not going to get any answers out of this minister, because she either doesn't know, she doesn't have a policy or she doesn't have a briefing note on it. We're going to have to leave it alone, because we're not going to get an answer out of this minister. Her silence speaks loudly as to where we're heading and what direction we're going in.

Chair:  Is there any further debate on community and correctional services?

Community and Correctional Services in the amount of $328,000 agreed to

Public Service Commission

Chair:  Is there any debate on Public Service Commission? Seeing no further general debate on Public Service Commission, we will head into operation and maintenance expenditures.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair:  Do members wish to have this entire budget considered carried and cleared?

All Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures for the Public Service Commission in the amount of $668,000 agreed to

Chair:  Is there any general debate on Renewable Resources?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I would like to take just a few moments at the outset, as I think it might help to move debate along.

This supplementary adds a total of $1,014,000 to my department's O&M budget and $135,000 to capital. These additional expenditures are offset by additional recoveries of $31,000 in O&M and $49,000 in capital, Mr. Chair.

The two largest requests for funding in O&M are $547,000 for an adjustment to the superannuation, which is recoverable from the federal government, and $266,000 to cover the collective agreement increases. This request also includes a transfer of $64,000 from the capital budget for the wildlife viewing technician FTE and $15,000 as a result of the revote of the state of the environment reporting to do the final printing of the report for public distribution.

The remaining $121,000 is new money and covers seven items: $500,000 is being used for the Thandlät ice patch studies; $25,000 is being used to create a permanent indeterminate policy analysis position that will be dedicated exclusively to forest-related issues; $20,000 is being used for moose survey in the Pelly Crossing area; $10,000 for the bison paddock cleanup; $6,000 for Colorado lynx relocation project; $5,000 is being used for the Mayo Lake fisheries assessment, and $5,000 is being used to cover the facility maintenance agreement increase due to the collective agreement.

Of the above projects, the moose survey, the Colorado lynx relocation and the Mayo Lake fisheries assessment are fully recoverable projects.

Moving on to the capital of the budget, this supplementary consists of a total of a $150,000 revote of capital monies previously approved by this Legislature to cover incomplete or unfinished projects, an internal transfer of $65,000 to the O&M budget for the wildlife viewing technician FTE, and $50,000 additional money, for a net increase of $135,000.

The $150,000 revote is going to the following projects: $30,000 to the parks system plan and support of the Yukon protected areas strategy; $5,000 to resource assessment in support of the Yukon protected areas strategy; $49,000 to the global warming climate exchange project, which is fully recoverable; $50,000 to capital works and campgrounds; $8,000 for the campground self-registration system; $5,000 to fisheries enhancement, and $3,000 to agriculture infrastructure facilities, namely the abattoir.

The $50,000 additional money is new money and covers two initiatives: $29,000 for the collective agreement increases and adjustments of the superannuation and $21,000 is going toward the Bonnet Plume heritage river plan to complete the wildlife baseline data studies as a continuation of the 1999-2000 work.

I trust these brief comments will help clarify some of the items prior to debate.

Mr. McRobb:      I too will keep my comments as brief as possible, since we're only about two months away from the spring sitting and a new budget, at which time we expect to review this department fully.

I would like to start by showing my appreciation and the appreciation of the caucus of the official opposition toward all the employees of this very important department, which administers our wildlife in the territory and cares for our natural resources among other things, such as promoting agriculture and so on. So, it's a very important department.

Now, I'll be somewhat less charitable in my comments in the performance of this minister, however. And I think it's fair to say that everybody expected more from him than what has been delivered to date.

After the election there was hope that this minister could do as good a job as the previous Minister of Renewable Resources did. But it has been seven months, and that hope has failed. Looking at the bigger picture of this government, which has lacked vision and direction from day one, Renewable Resources has been put on the back burner, both by the minister and his Cabinet. This supplementary budget and the lack of spending on the environment is proof of that.

Aside from the collective agreement and superannuation - an increase of $836,000 - there is less than $200,000 identified in this supplementary budget, and almost all of that is for revotes. There's absolutely nothing new in this budget that stands out. Any new money is directed at programs and initiatives created by the previous NDP government.

This lack of vision is unacceptable. This is the stage and the mandate where this government has to develop the foundation of what it plans to achieve in its term in office.

Its term in office is already more than half a year old, and we see very little in the way of new initiatives.

The mantra of this Liberal government, so far, can be rendered down to say anything, do nothing, especially when it comes to the environment and the Department of Renewable Resources. It's no wonder that departmental staff is wondering what the direction of this minister really is. Understandably, they feel that the minister and this government have put them in a holding pattern. Public servants in this department are truly dedicated to the Yukon's environment and are proud of their accomplishments in the past. But now they are being told to do nothing and not to speak out.

Cancel, review, delay - that's the Liberal way. That's the way the government is running. This is a classic example of how this government is running from its responsibilities. I am sure that fellow caucus and Cabinet colleagues of the minister look up in wonderment and marvel at his ability to follow the say-anything, do-nothing mantra. But I would expect more from the minister and his government, now that they have a special relationship with the big-daddy Liberals in Ottawa. There are several outstanding matters of importance to Yukoners that are linked to the federal government, and Yukoners are expecting many of them to be resolved and fulfilled now that all the Liberal stars are lined up.

What about issues like the Marwell tar pit? What about other environmental messes caused by that colonial government so many years ago?

I'll name a few: the BYG cleanup; Keno Hill cleanup; Clinton Creek, Faro, Whitehorse Copper and all the other environmental time bombs too numerous to mention, ticking away in our backyard, and all we have gotten from the federal government is lip service and empty promises that everything will be okay. All we hear, Mr. Chair, is that there is a special relationship.

When will this government deliver?

All the federal government has delivered in the way of cleanup of abandoned military sites is a credit of $100 million in arms from the U.S. government. That was shameful. That was a matter of debate in this Legislature a few years ago and was covered extensively at that time. It's sad to say that a progress report on that issue gets a failing grade, because the Liberals have done nothing. They have done nothing to allocate money toward a cleanup of those problems plaguing our environment.

So, when the minister stands up, I expect to hear a clear outline of how these matters will be resolved, considering the so-called "special relationship".

The Yukon protected areas strategy is under review. It has been under review for the last seven months. I understand the advisory committee still hasn't met yet. For all intents and purposes, Mr. Chair, YPAS has been shelved. There is very little in the way of progress and there's no certainty for either the development community or the environmental community.

What is the message to stakeholders or to Yukoners? I think it is quite simple: everything is on hold. Cancel, review, delay - that's the Liberal way.

The minister, on the other hand, stands up and repeats old ministerial statements. Today was no exception, Mr. Chair. But a lot of Yukoners, especially ones with an environmental conscience, would wish the minister would stop floundering or carping, and get on with the business of the public and produce in these troublesome areas of great concern to people in the territory.

I am sure that the minister is able to create half a dozen or so ministerial statements and conjure up some press releases before we see any progress from this government and this minister on the YPAS review, let alone any progress in the main thrust of creating more parks and protected areas in the territory. When will they deliver on that, Mr. Chair? Or will the review just continue on until the next election? Where is the on-the-ground progress? Renewable resource councils are wondering what happened to the territorial government. They haven't been hearing too much from the minister on issues related to renewable resources. What happened to this proactive listening-to-Yukoners and doing-what-we-said-we-were-going-to-do government? The RRCs are suffering due to a lack of funding to do the work necessary to manage and plan for the future. What is the minister doing about that? There's no money in the supplementary budget and no money in the Liberal's first supplementary budget either, Mr. Chair.

Where's the Liberal government on this issue? This is exactly where their special relationship with their Ottawa cousins can do some good. Now is the time to be building relationships with First Nation governments on wildlife and natural resource issues and to be working cooperatively with these governments to better manage our valuable natural resources.

But all I hear from the communities is that everything is under review and that any new initiatives will be sometime down the road before this government even looks at them. What kind of a message is this government sending rural Yukon? While it's full speed ahead on the pipeline, all other concerns and issues take a back seat to this single-focus government.

I'd like to remind the minister there are issues related to the survival of endangered species in the Yukon that are not being addressed. I know the minister is familiar with this. He travelled this summer to a meeting, to deal specifically with this issue. He came back and made some high and mighty promises, Mr. Chair, but we all witnessed what happened to the endangered species legislation. Once again, it died on the Order Paper. That is another example of how the Liberal government put politics before endangered wildlife in this country.

When we have a federal Liberal government that's willing to kill the act just so it can roll into another term, it speaks volumes for its priorities on the environment. It's shameful.

I look forward immediately to a strong message, from this minister to the federal environment minister, asking that this legislation be retabled when the House of Commons sits in late January.

Now, there is new money for a policy analyst to be dedicated to forestry issues. This is about time, Mr. Chair, because the minister needs someone to keep him abreast of what the federal government is doing behind his back. Question Period yesterday testifies to how badly this government has a grip on the forestry issues of the territory. Instead, this government doesn't know what's going on, isn't aware of the risk to land claims and other issues, and it's about time this minister and his colleagues get plugged into these important matters.

Now, I could go on and on regarding the inadequacies of this budget related to renewable resources, but, Mr. Chair, there is also an opportunity to deal with some issues in line-by-line.

I'd just like to summarize. There's nothing new here of substance for Renewable Resources in terms of vision and new initiatives. And I don't expect anything new and exciting in the main estimates in February of next year either, because the Liberal government keeps talking about the evils of running a deficit, regardless of having a $64-million surplus.

Mr. Chair, like another mantra, they like to stand up and point at the deficit; but an important and critical component of that surplus equation is the lapses, which is ignored by this Liberal government. Considering the lapses of this current budget year, the estimated surplus at year-end of this year is estimated to be at least $45 million by this government's own forecasts.

That is a very light forecast. It considers only $15 million in lapses. Historically, that is a very conservative amount. We know that the lapses will be much greater this year, which will increase the year-end surplus to a greater amount than $45 million.

Our leader, earlier today, alluded to the possibility of that figure being as high as $80 million. Unfortunately, we won't know exactly what that figure is until the end of October next year, when the Auditor General reports, although we will have a somewhat more exact figure when we deal with the budget in the spring.

So, when the ministers stand up and cry poverty, Mr. Chair, and talk about the deficit, we are not hearing the full equation. I would hope that particularly the Health minister takes note of that.

All I expect in February are further cuts to programs and less and less for Renewable Resources, because it's obvious that this government and this minister give this department and the environment a very low priority in terms of spending.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, I just have a few questions in general debate for which I will be seeking answers. One of the areas of concern by residents around the Yukon, and specifically in my riding, is the surrounding agricultural land, its availability and the timelines it takes to run through the process. I have three constituents who brought it to my attention - Edward Lilley, Michael Vincent and Bud Kenzie. They filed agricultural applications on or about February 24, 1998, and there has been no progress whatsoever.

Now, in the past, Mr. Chair, it was because of land claims. Land claims have been resolved and settled in our area. The Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in are fully implementing their land claims now. Does the minister have an excuse or reason for why these agricultural leases are not proceeding?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I am unfamiliar with the specific items that the Member for Klondike has brought to my attention. I'm glad he did, and I will be looking into those specific items and asking the department myself to make sure that there is a more speedy response with respect to those applications.

The member, I'm sure, is also aware that the agricultural policy and grazing lease policy evaluations are out for review right now. These were released, not necessarily with the government's position attached to them, which I think was a good objective. That way, not only will it afford those individuals in the territory who apply for and use grazing leases and agricultural leases, but will afford the opportunity of government to really have a good look at not only the recommendations that were contained in those documents, but also to consider the full value of what feedback we do get on them. I believe that the plan is for the review to be completed in the spring with final revised policies set in place by the summer of 2001.

I also have a colleague within caucus who is helping me specifically on the whole agricultural branch within Renewable, so there are two of us working on the issue, Mr. Chair, and we are addressing the specific needs, also including the multi-year development plan.

With all due respect for the Member for Klondike, I will check out those. If he would be gracious enough to provide the names again in writing, I will forward those names on myself and see exactly where they are.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, I listened to the minister, Mr. Chair, and I'm concerned that there's no progress being made on agricultural applications at this juncture because the department is out conducting a review on both agricultural and grazing applications. Is that in fact the case? Are these individuals going to be asked to wait until after these policy reviews are completed and a new policy is in place and then they have to re-apply under another set of rules? Because that's what it looks like is going to occur. Or did these people, at the time that they applied, apply under a set policy and a set of rules. They were given to understand at that juncture that their applications would be treated under that policy and that set of rules.

Now, what I'm hearing from the minister is that they're developing a new policy and a new set of rules. Which policy and which set of rules are going to apply to the applications currently before the department? Will it be the ones that currently exist, or are they going to delay and defer all of these applications until such time as they develop new policies and new reviews? And, Mr. Chair, is that fair?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The Member for Klondike is correct; it's not fair. And my understanding is that until there is an effective change in policy or in law or whatever, applications are reviewed under the current conditions. Again, I will pick up those names, and I'll hand them over to the department myself for clarification - exactly where they are - and I will write a letter personally to those members and give them clarification on the points.

Mr. Jenkins:      One of the other areas of concern is the abattoir that was recently funded in the Yukon. Has there been an overview as to where it's at? Is it achieving its objectives? I'm not asking for a full response here in the House today. Would the minister be kind enough to send over an overview as to where the abattoir project is currently and how it's proceeding? Is it meeting the goals that were originally outlined and expected of it? And can we look forward to seeing such an overview in the not-too-distant future, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Chair, I will do that.

Mr. Jenkins:      The other concern is surrounding forestry, and what happens and what is occurring in that area. It seems that the federal government and Government of the Yukon are not quite in step with each other, Mr. Chair. The Government of Yukon appears to be very much sidelined on the forestry issue here in the Yukon. Has the minister got a brief overview of the role of Government of the Yukon on forestry and what is happening? It's a sustainable industry that could put a lot of Yukoners to work.

The Premier was mute about going to her federal counterparts and seeking a THA for southeast Yukon. That spells out difficulties. And I was hoping that the minister could enlighten us as to just what the position of the department is with respect to forestry here in the Yukon. Are we making any headway?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      That indeed is a million-dollar question. With respect to the process that was going on in the development of a THA, it certainly was delayed as a result of the election.

I am sure that the member opposite is aware of what government policy is when there is an election, in that they don't really move on a whole lot. The letter that went out on December 1 by DIAND on the Y-01 area - the most sensitive area and most southeast in the Yukon - was a surprise, in that they did not really apprise Yukon that they would be initiating this discussion as it was put forward in their letter.

And that for a number of months before that, Y-01, Y-02 and Y-03 had always been known in the area, and Yukon had lobbied very hard and long on keeping the Y-01 area in abeyance until a plan had been developed in whatever shape or form DIAND, through a consultative process, came up with, with respect to Y-02 and Y-03. So, my understanding that, at this particular juncture, although things were to have been done and completed by the end of October, the election call came up and I was a little bit relieved in that it allowed more time for review in the structuring of the THA process.

As the member is aware, I'm sure, DIAND has unsuccessfully tried to develop THA processes for almost two years, and the activities or the process that they've tried to follow has been very unsuccessful in including key stakeholders at any given time or calling a meeting at the last moment and expecting key stakeholders to show up. So, when this government came into effect, we immediately contacted the federal Minister of Northern Affairs and requested that Yukon have more direct input and that the local DIAND office here have more respect, given that, in anticipation of devolution, we'll be handling the resources. So, the development of this process is something we're going to have to live with.

So we requested more direct involvement, and it was for that reason that our letter mark went on the latest request for information on the design of a THA process.

The member asked where we are exactly now. In a recent discussion with DIAND officials, they indicated that, because of the feedback that they have received - and I have not, I will admit, seen the details of that feedback, but as I understand it there will be continuing consultations with an individual hired by DIAND to go to the communities. Then it is anticipated that there will be workshops - at this time of discussion, at least two workshops, with one specifically at the request of Yukon in Watson Lake, and the other is as yet undetermined. I believe that is to be happening at the beginning of February, so we're not excited at all at the prospect of further and increased delays.

I have been listening to the Member for Watson Lake in expressing the concerns that the forest industry down there has. I have been listening and, contrary to what the Member for Kluane is saying, we are taking action, we are in dialogue, we are listening to the resource and stakeholders down in the area.

So, I would hope that the issues can be resolved a lot quicker than what the federal timeline is on this.

Mr. Jenkins:      The other area I'm looking for some overview on, Mr. Chair, is where are we at with the protected areas strategy? I don't want the minister to stand up and respond at this juncture. Is there a written overview of where the department is at with this initiative, where the various areas are and where we're going with it? If he can provide a written response, I'd certainly appreciate that. Could the minister agree to do so, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Chair.

Chair:  Seeing no further general debate, we'll go right into line-by-line.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair:  Are there any questions on the recoveries?

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures for the Department of Renewable Resources in the amount of $1,014,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      I'm concerned about some of these initiatives and why we're taking money away. The wildlife viewing and the park system plan - I would have thought that these initiatives would have been very beneficial for our visitor industry, and there are various areas of responsibility for these initiatives. Some are in the department of highways, some are in Tourism, and some are in Renewable Resources. But wildlife viewing is a very, very important aspect of our visitor industry, and yet we're crossing money out of the budget there and, in park systems plans, we're crossing money out of the budget there. What's happening? Are they just going to lapse and bring it back next year?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      There was a revote to continue the park planning in the Fishing Branch of $30,000. Management planning and boundary surveys were unable to start last year due to delays in undertaking a review. Finalizing the boundaries and starting the management planning process for the Fishing Branch protected area are the next steps in the process, so there was a transfer of resource assessments of $60,000. So that created a minus $30,000. Further clarification on the resource assessment, if the member would allow -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Chair:  Okay, we'll continue on.

Mr. McRobb:      Can the minister table the report on the Tombstone claims that was supposed to be done last summer? I believe that it was going to be completed in August. Can he provide that for us?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Can the Member for Kluane further clarify what report he is referring to, please?

Mr. McRobb:      Sure, I can provide a bit more information. It was on the buyout of the claims - the Canadian United Mineral claims, I believe. It was undertaken during the spring sitting to do a report. Apparently it was to be completed in July or August. Does the minister have that report and can he provide it to us?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I don't believe that report has been finalized.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, that's another item behind schedule, Mr. Chair. Can the minister at least undertake to provide it to us when it is available?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Chair.

Park System Plan in the amount of an underexpenditure of $30,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      It sounds like the department has got its way on this initiative here and we're seeing more money with the self-registration system and campground facilities.

The last industry the Yukon has left going for it, as a consequence of federal Liberal and Yukon Liberal policies, is our visitor industry, so the area of campgrounds and the respective facilities, Mr. Chair, deserves quite an added amount of attention than it is currently being given.

We need to upgrade a lot of our campgrounds, we need to provide more facilities, and our viewing areas need to be enhanced. The one we discussed at length last year was the Five Finger Rapids viewing area. I haven't heard anything more about the game plan as to when this is going to come into focus and occur.

I'm not asking the minister to stand on his feet and answer now. I'm just asking him to take it under advisement. We will expect in the budget next year to see a very strong emphasis on campgrounds - their enhancement, the Five Finger Rapids viewing area - and those initiatives coming to the forefront and being addressed. It's about time.

The federal Liberals and the Yukon Liberals have destroyed every other industry here in the Yukon, such as mining and oil and gas. At least with the visitor industry we have a chance, Mr. Chair.

So, we will expect next spring to see in the mains some additional funds dedicated to this area, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I realize that wasn't a question, but I would like to respond to the member opposite. I do agree with most of his nattering, with the exception of what he is saying on exactly what this government is doing on other sectors, in trying to kick-start the economy in the devastation that we inherited.

The fact is that I will echo his sentiments as will, I'm sure, members of the official opposition, that our campgrounds have been neglected for years and years and years. In my discussions with directors within the branch, I would like to acknowledge the statement made by the Member for Kluane that we do have an incredible group of individuals who work within the Department of Renewable Resources. They are a very dedicated group of people and I very much appreciate the comments that he has passed on and the kudos that he passed on to the folks within the department. I do thank him for that, but then again, he does wander off in a headspace of his own when he starts talking about and recognizing the accomplishments of this government.

I will provide a list of what we're doing in our campgrounds to the Member for Klondike and the leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Jenkins:      Campgrounds and viewing areas.

Chair:  Okay, so we'll continue on then.

Capital Works - Campground Facilities in the amount of $65,000 agreed to

Mr. McRobb:      This is the wildlife viewing project - reduction of $65,000. Now, as I understand it, the ministers undertook to provide information to the leader of the third party and the leader of the official opposition. Can he provide to me, please, a complete list of which wildlife viewing projects were done in this budget year and why he's taking $65,000 out of this very important program?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I would be more than willing and pleased, Mr. Chair, to provide copies to each and every member on the other side, seeing as they don't choose to communicate among themselves at all.

With respect to the wildlife viewing, this was a $65,000 transfer of one FTE to O&M. And yes, I will provide a summary to the member opposite on the work that was done on wildlife viewing areas in the territory. I'll send a copy to all members.

Wildlife Viewing in the amount of an underexpenditure of $65,000 agreed to

Mr. McRobb:      Under fish and wildlife management, I have a question regarding wolf control and trappers programs. Does the minister have anything in mind to involve trappers in this program?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I thought we were on line-by-line.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, and the line is for fisheries enhancement.

Chair:  The interpretation of this is that since it's under fish and wildlife management planning, it doesn't specifically have to be on this project. Anything to do with fish and wildlife management planning is a valid question. So whether you want to answer it or not, Mr. Eftoda, is your choice; but it's within the legal bounds.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      With all due respect, I am going to have to ask the Member for Kluane to ask the question again. I am sorry.

Mr. McRobb:      Sure, Mr. Chair. With regard to the wolf management project - I will refer to it as that in broad terms - is this government or the minister planning to involve trappers in any way?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The wolf conservation management plan in the Aishihik area may be the area that the Member for Kluane is alluding to. This is the only wolf conservation management program that we have in the territory right now. The department is embarking on an experimental program of wolf fertility from 2000 to 2003 in the Aishihik area. And a minimum of six packs in key moose and caribou will be maintained as non-productive units.

The program is consistent with the Aishihik integrated wildlife management plan and was supported as a viable alternative to lethal control by a number of partners attending the August 10, 2000 meeting to discuss the plan. This included the Alsek Renewable Resource Council, the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Yukon Fish and Game Association. To the best of my knowledge, I believe that that study is going to be maintained to the year 2003, and then there will be consideration of what next steps are required.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Chair, I'll explain that a bit further, if I may, because I'm the one who asked the Renewable Resources critic to bring it up.

What happens is that, since I'm not sitting on the opposite side of the House and I have much more time and the ability, I have just taken a refresher trapping course in Haines Junction. It was put on by some very professional people, good people, and I thank the department for being able to do that.

Now, what came up, though, and what has come up within my riding - the Ross River area and the Teslin area - and other areas is that a lot of wolves are out and about. Just last winter, in my short time at home, I experienced eight sightings of wolves from my own house. People are asking me now how they can go out without having gunships, like the Yukon Party loved to do, and shoot the wolves from the air. Is there something that we can do to curb the wolf population at the local level without getting the gunships out again?

It's not a trick question. I'm asking if you would be able to talk to people out and about the department to ask if there are ways to involve more local people in the curbing of the wolves. You don't have to answer on your feet at this point in time. A written response at some point in time in the future would suffice.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I do have an answer and I will supply it in writing to the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes.

Mr. Keenan:      I have another question and I hope it falls into this realm. It's on policy and planning, and I hope this is the right spot and I hope I don't get called out of order. It is on the ministerial statement that was delivered this afternoon.

I asked the minister in private some time ago about the policing aspects of the reciprocal agreement and whether the law enforcement officials - the game wardens, if I can call them that - from the Yukon would be empowered to go into British Columbia waters for enforcement?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I'd be more than pleased to send the agreement over to the member opposite and to the Member for Kluane, since he just stuck up his hand, and the leader of the third party. 'Tis the season.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, it will identify the aspect the member asked about with respect to enforcement.

But I will, most generously and with a ribbon, be more than glad to send to the members opposite any information that they want.

Fisheries Enhancement in the amount of $5,000 agreed to

Department of Tourism

Chair:  Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to introduce the Supplementary Estimates No. 2 for the Department of Tourism.

The department has requested an increase of $971,000 to its O&M budget and $420,000 to its capital budget. The supplementary includes $54,000 in O&M revotes and $475,000 in capital revotes. This supplementary budget reflects an increase in the superannuation cost and payroll increases under the collective agreement of $297,000 in O&M and $52,000 in capital.

The highlight of this budget is the new program the Department of Tourism has introduced, the stay-another-day program. It is designed to encourage visitors to increase their length of stay in the Yukon. We want visitors to spend more time and money in the communities. Our new program will see the combined marketing of tourism, arts and cultural industries and heritage into a program that will benefit many sectors through partnerships. Phase 1 of the museum strategy is in this supplementary budget. A new museum strategy is a priority of this government.

Also included in the supplementary budget is a wonderful project that will see the development of two virtual museum Web sites: one on Herschel Island and the other on Yukon photographs.

The beauty of this computer program is that it is 100-percent recoverable from the federal government. The department completed the virtual museum project by working with our museum partners and the college.

I committed to this Legislature and to the tourism industry to have more facts and figures. The Department of Tourism will be hiring a research officer to make this happen.

Air access is also a priority of this government and we have undertaken an air access study. The supplementary budget allows us to move the study to the next stage. We will develop business plans to increase air access through negotiations with domestic air carriers, including Air Canada and Canadian - or what used to be Canadian.

Another enhanced program that we are proud of is the Yukon Film Commission. Yukon residents have enjoyed approximately 1,800 person-days of work on film production so far this year, compared to 250 person-days in 1998. Inquiries from movie and television commercial producers are increasing. We are providing additional resources to take advantage of the growth in this industry. Because the film industry is growing, we have an opportunity to get involved in a public/private partnership. An electrics package is all the lighting equipment, cables, generators and lights that are needed for commercial or a small feature film project. We feel that, over time, this investment could generate a reasonable profit.

Finally, we have committed to working with the Yukon Convention Bureau, communities and local business to promote the Yukon as a convention destination. The government is providing funds to the Yukon Convention Bureau, which will allow them to hire a convention sales person to assist in the preparation and delivery of convention bids.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain this supplementary budget, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, I would be remiss if I didn't get up and give this minister a hard time on her failings as Minister of Tourism in much the same way that I held accountable the Health minister, the Renewable Resources minister and the Community and Transportation Services minister. And there is one area in particular that I want to get at with this minister, and that is her failing to answer questions - a complete failure to answer questions.

In Question Period, in this sitting especially, many, many questions were asked related to departmental policy, related to government policy, related to value for money for purchases and so on, and this minister failed to provide the answers.

Mr. Chair, she confused the investigation by Mr. Hughes with policy questions and with information that the department should be willing and able to provide. Now, it might be that the department is willing and able to provide the information, but the minister certainly isn't. I think there's a roadblock at the political level. And we could have chosen, Mr. Chair, to pursue that matter, but we chose not to. We chose not to, Mr. Chair, because we would expect no more from this minister in the way of information and answers.

It is sad when we on this side of the House give up asking the Tourism minister questions because we know the questions will not be answered. So, let's hope for a better performance in the sittings ahead, Mr. Chair, from this minister especially.

Now, I do have a few questions, starting with the tourism marketing fund. Can this minister indicate exactly where this program is at and where it will be in the years ahead?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, first of all, there is a vast difference between answering the questions the way the member opposite wants them answered and answering questions.

The tourism marketing fund is under review. By that I mean that we have been examining the way that those funds have been delivered to the private sector and to NGOs over the last few years. We have constructed a discussion paper on the tourism marketing fund and that paper, along with other documents, will be going to caucus for further discussion.

That is exactly where it is at, and obviously there will have to be a decision before the construction of next year's budget.

Mr. McRobb:      I assume that there won't be any more returns pursuing this matter because the minister will just stand up and say it's under review, it has been delayed and we have nothing for you at this time. But I would like to remind the minister of how important this marketing program is for tourism operators in the territory, and there is no reason why this minister couldn't have used her great influence at the Cabinet table to include this program in the supplementary budget that we're dealing with now.

Tourism operators have spoken to me personally and to us as a caucus and told us how disappointed they are in the lack of funds this winter to help them market their products and businesses.

There is no excuse for this, Mr. Chair, given the huge surplus this Liberal government is sitting on.

Mr. Chair, I would like to remind the Tourism minister once again that we'll be watching closely what happens to funding for the arts community, because we know it is under review. The arts community is very important to the territory. There are a lot of people involved in our cultural industries and so on who are supported by this funding and who rely on this funding to develop their creativity into products and services all Yukoners can be proud of.

So I'd like to ask the minister where this review of the funding is at and where she expects it to go and what the timelines are.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, first of all, it's a good thing that the member opposite is going to hold this side accountable. When I was on the side opposite, that was my job, and I'm glad to see that he is so clear on what their role is. They are no longer the government; they are in opposition.

As for the arts funding and arts funding models, the vast majority of arts funding has, in the past, come through the community development fund. That is not the best approach; it is not sustainable. It doesn't work well with the long-term objectives of the arts branch. It also does not work well with the long-term funding objectives of this government.

Therefore, there have been a number of internal reviews that have gone on. There have been some discussion papers prepared, much like the ones under the tourism marketing fund. They will be going to caucus, and there will be a strong and, I'm sure, quite vivid discussion around that issue. But to be absolutely clear, this government strongly supports the arts community, and we are disturbed with the fact that the previous government did not support the arts in the way that we think they should be funded, which is through the line items in the arts branch.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure who this minister is talking to. The cultural groups in the Yukon were the best funded in the country until this Liberal government got in and held up this program by putting it under review.

Mr. Chair, we've heard all kinds of good feedback and accolades from people not only in the cultural industry, but other Yukoners who appreciate our strong arts community and resources in the territory. There's no reason why this government could not have provided more funding in this supplementary budget to the tourism marketing fund. There's no reason why they have to hold up the community development fund by not bringing in funding in the fall like we would have done and like we historically always did, Mr. Chair. The fall was the time of year to take a closer look at the books, after the Auditor General reported, to refocus on the year-end and to revisit the need to provide further funding or new funding for Yukoners during the winter.

Now, in the spring this government said the surplus was $41 million. They were wrong. The Auditor General, at the end of October, tabled a report indicating that the surplus was $64 million. Now that's more than 50 percent higher than these Liberals thought it would be.

Yet, in the fall when it came to providing funds for the arts community and for tourism marketing, Mr. Chair, they were bankrupt of ideas on how to do it and they pleaded poverty. Well, that's shameful - that's shameful.

We see some ministers stand up, and in the Christmas spirit, try to paint themselves as being very generous, but Yukoners will remember the winter of 2000-01 when this Liberal government sat on a huge surplus and did nothing to help Yukoners get through the winter.

This government has painted a true picture of what it will be remembered for, Mr. Chair. And that's shameful - shameful.

And what's even more shameful is that these Liberal Cabinet ministers don't understand where they're at financially. They're either blind or they have been hoodwinked into believing that the economic standing of the territorial finances is far, far worse than it really is. And that really troubles me, Mr. Chair. It's really troubling. Because it's this group of people who make the budget decisions of the territory and that's a responsibility for about the next three years. If they don't know how much they have to spend, how can we expect them to best provide for Yukoners? That's the question.

Can the minister indicate to us what the main options are that she and her colleagues are considering through these discussion papers that have being prepared and the discussions at the caucus table? I understand how the internal government process works, Mr. Chair. There's probably an options paper identifying two or three options. Can she indicate what those are for us?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, if the member opposite knows what the process is, then he knows that those are internal documents. They are not for discussion on the floor of the Legislature. To be absolutely clear, those are not public documents. There has not been a decision made.

Let's go back again to some of the comments from the side opposite. We're talking about the CDF. The CDF is under review because there is no money left, because the vast majority of those dollars were spent in the last 17 days of a dying government. The money is spent. It's not there.

To be absolutely clear, if the side opposite continues to listen to people who agree with them, then they're going to end up in opposition forever, because that's a problem, because you have to listen to both sides of the story. We heard, when we were the opposition, people who supported the tourism marketing fund, but they also said there were major, major problems with it.

The other thing that the member is not quite clear on is that we are not making totally political decisions about these funding mechanisms, either through TMF or through the arts. What we have done is that we have gone back to the arts community, we have gone to the private sector, we have done extensive consultations, and we have asked people what they think would work.

We didn't make a political decision three months after coming into office and say, "This is the way it's going to be." We are not going to do that. That was done by previous governments, and I have many examples of where funding came out of the blue for projects when there was really no reason for it.

Now, this government is looking at sustainable development in the arts. We want a strong and vibrant arts community that supports what we're doing in tourism, that supports us in our education systems, that supports Yukoners in everything they do. We are trying very, very hard to listen to the people and what they have to say.

We are not going to be making a political decision about this funding mechanism or any other.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, I could take exception to those remarks, but, you know, the spring sitting is only two months away. That will be the time when Yukoners get to see what, if anything, this Liberal government has to produce on its own, because it won't have the previous NDP government to rely on for drafting its budget. We'll see then what this government stands for and what it doesn't stand for.

So, with that, Mr. Chair, I clear general debate.

Deputy Chair:  Is there any further general debate on the Department of Tourism? Seeing none, we will now proceed to line-by-line.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair:  Are there any questions on the revenues?

Mr. McRobb:      Can the minister give us a breakdown on the $80,000 for the Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre please?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      The anticipated transfer to the museum did not take place. This was the one where there was that shared process with the Yukon Transportation Museum. Admissions revenue was done by the department, so it was done by department staff at Beringia. This does not mean to say that we have abandoned the idea of the Friends of Beringia, that process is still going on. I should be meeting with the Friends of Beringia either later this month or at the beginning of the new year.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, how much of this $80,000 was for the buyout of Mike's North Communications?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      None.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, that's contrary to what we were told in the Tourism briefing session. Will the minister revisit that issue and provide us with another answer?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, this is recoveries. This is the $80,000 that was an in-and-out item for the transfer to the Friends of Beringia model. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issues in Beringia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Chair, that's aside from the issue. The minister refused to answer the question. How much of the Beringia money went for the buyout? Can she answer that, please?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, none of those dollars are included in this line item whatsoever. I believe that the final figure was $67,000, although I'm not exactly sure and I don't have the papers here, because this has nothing to do with the supplementary budget again, Mr. Chair.

Deputy Chair:      Are there any further questions on the revenue?

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures for the Department of Tourism in the amount of $971,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      Could the minister advise the House if the department has refocused its initiatives on our principal markets - the U.S. and Europe - and kind of got out of the oriental area, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, yes, those transfers have taken place. That is not to say that we aren't still doing some work in those markets; it's just that we have done some transfers from that budget into the North American budget.

Mr. Jenkins:      Is anything happening with respect to our major market? Has anything been earmarked for Alaska and marketing in that region?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Our biggest partner in that, of course, is the stay-another-day program because what we are trying to do is to get people, who are on their way to Alaska or coming back from Alaska to stay another day here. So, they are our biggest partners in that. There will be a great deal of advertising and, over in Alaska, joint marketing programs with them are already starting to take place. Part of that was developed at the Alaska Travel Industry Association meeting in Alaska, held two months ago.

On Tourism Marketing Fund

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, is there any initiative afoot to refocus Beringia on its original business plan and move it along from there or are we going to see it - in what format, the existing format?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, we're looking at Beringia in the bigger picture. Much like we're looking at the Northern Lights Centre and the other various facilities - the George Johnston Museum, the cultural centre in Carmacks and all the rest of them. We're looking at them altogether under the museum strategy. It seemed best to take a more holistic approach.

Yukon Beringia Centre - Marketing in the amount of $13,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      Are we going to see a new highway signage policy coming down the road, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:     Yes, Mr. Chair, that was one of my first priorities as the minister. Any of us who spend any time on the highways can just see the difference between what happens outside and what we have got here.

We are working on that project over the winter and we are, of course, working with all the other departments it applies to - Renewable and, obviously, C&TS, which is the lead - and we have a signage committee under the Yukon tourism marketing partnership and we also have people who have gone out to the signage conferences in Edmonton just recently, and we are developing a Yukon-wide plan for signage.

Interpretation and Signage in the amount of $14,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      I was wondering if the minister could provide an overview of what we're doing here for the additional funds, and I would hope that we're looking internally, because most of the problems we have with the product that we offer are right here at home, Mr. Chair. And I would urge the minister to start looking and consulting with her colleague in Community and Transportation Services. Because if we look at the infrastructure that needs to be addressed, it's the airport here in Whitehorse, it's the airport in my community of Dawson City, which, just to make it conform to existing regulations so it can get its operating certificate, is going to be another $4 million. To upgrade it and pave it, it's another $8 million on top of that, so we're looking at $12 million, and we can't even get an answer from the minister of towns and trucks as to whether there's an initiative taken to open the Taylor Highway in Alaska that connects with the Top of the World Highway in the Yukon. So the minister of towns and trucks doesn't know, but this impacts considerably and very much on our visitor industry, Mr. Chair, and I would urge the Minister of Tourism to probably have a little chat with the minister of towns and trucks and see if we can come to some understanding as to the opening of the Taylor Highway in Alaska, the airport in Dawson, and a lot of the other facilities.

Now, if we're looking at highway signage all up and down the highways, that's great. But if we don't cut the brush down along the sides of the highway, like the minister of towns and trucks hasn't been doing, Mr. Chair, we've got a real problem. We can have the nicest signs, and we have some of the nicest signs, and you can see them up and down our highways, but they're hidden in the brush.

So just where are we at with looking internally, and is some of this money earmarked for that initiative, Mr. Chair? And the resource assessment - is that an internal resource assessment that we're going to be looking at? And it's probably just to lobby the other departments within government. If we look at it overall, Mr. Chair, the only surviving industry is our visitor industry here in the Yukon. The federal Liberals and the Yukon Liberals have destroyed the mining industry, destroyed the oil and gas industry. What have we got left?

We need all the tools possible to give to the visitor industry to see if we can enhance that and provide some jobs, Mr. Chair. So, some of the areas that the tourism industry or the visitor industry has to work with is the minister responsible for airports and highways. What is happening overall, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      I can give the side opposite some examples of some specific projects that we are working on. One of them started at the Alaska Travel Industry Association meeting in October, only two months ago. We had extensive conversations with Era Airlines. They brought up the issue about the GPS system - and it's a $118,000 item - and we have been working with C&TS on dealing with the issue of that airline coming into Dawson City.

In addition to that, of course, I will go through and give the detail on the line under product and resource assessment. $4,000 was the revote required for revisions to the tourism strategy document, which included the final edits and printing. That was a document that was started under the previous NDP government. There was a revote for the Kluane tourism plan to carry out the regional meetings needed to complete the plan. There was a revote for the Arctic vision project to complete the consultants' work. $18,000 was a revote for the icon development or a continuation of the destination product development assessment. These all have been ongoing studies that have been happening in the department, and most are complete now. We went down $22,000. The client services position is now vacant, so those salary dollars were reallocated to other departmental priorities. And, of course, the $50,000 for the air access study, which we are doing quite well with, actually.

Air Canada came up to the Yukon. They certainly haven't gone to any other jurisdiction in Canada with decision makers to talk about air access issues. That was a real coup for us and we have done quite well on that project. There will be a finalization of that study, and we will be going out and talking to the airline with that information early in the new year.

Mr. McRobb:      I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if the minister can indicate to us which icon development projects they're actively considering?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, one of those is, of course, in the Kluane area. There are a number of them, mostly in the Southern Lakes district, but I will get a written response back to the side opposite on that issue and, of course, copy it to both parties.

Product and Resource Assessment in the amount of $59,000 agreed to

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, this matter concerns me. I was at the Beaver Creek visitor reception centre a couple of times this past summer, in the new building - and, by the way, it's a very beautiful building but it lacks what I would refer to as interactive displays. There is very little in the way of these smart display products inside the building.

Could the minister indicate to us if this appropriation of $31,000 will fill that void and, if not, what is coming down the road for this facility?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, we're at the meat-and-potatoes stage, unfortunately, with this project. This revote was required for the landscaping and development of a septic field at the VRC. Obviously, there will be ongoing work developing this visitor reception centre. The Member for Kluane is quite correct; it was an absolutely gorgeous facility and utilized a great number of the talents of the people in that area.

Development - Beaver Creek in the amount of $31,000 agreed to

Deputy Chair:  Are there any questions on the recoveries?

Capital Expenditures for the Department of Tourism in the amount of $420,000 agreed to

Women's Directorate

Deputy Chair:  Is there any general debate on the Women's Directorate?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, I have this lovely speech that I'd like to deliver, which is extremely short. It's only a page and a half.

The Women's Directorate supplementary budget request is for $39,000. This amount relates to unforeseen one-time personnel costs, which must be absorbed by the department. And the request covers two retroactive pays totalling $14,000, increases of $9,000 related to the collective agreement, and $16,000 increases in superannuation due to a rate increase.

The mandate of the Women's Directorate is to support the Yukon government's commitment to the economic, legal and social equality of women. The directorate helps integrate gender considerations into our government's policy, legislation, and program development.

Ms. Netro:      I am pleased to see this government's continued commitment to the Women's Directorate. The economic and legal and social equality for women is near and dear to my heart.

It is to that end that we in the official opposition will be ever vigilant in regard to this Liberal government's performance on women's issues. Through my contact with women in communities throughout the Yukon Territory, I have heard of issues that I will be bringing forward in this Legislature in the new spring sitting. With that, I have no further questions.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Seeing no further general debate, we'll go to line-by-line debate.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair:  Now we will proceed to Yukon Housing Corporation.

Yukon Housing Corporation

Chair:  Yukon Housing Corporation's budget can be found on page 14-3.

Is there any general debate on Yukon Housing Corporation?

Hon. Mr. Jim: I am pleased to introduce the 2000-01 supplementary budget for the Yukon Housing Corporation.

There are two line items in this budget. The first is the increase of $299,000 as a result of the collective bargaining agreement; the second is the $250,000 contribution to the seniors housing trust fund. This fund will be used to help finance future programs and services designed to assist Yukon seniors. Yukon Housing Corporation is currently developing a management plan that will detail how and when the funds can be spent, vote authority and the accountability framework. Although this work is still underway, I can commit to all members of this Assembly that the management plan will be transparent and that there will be the highest level of accountability.

Mr. Chair, I would now be pleased to provide further details if the members have specific questions on this supplementary budget.

Mr. Keenan:      I have a question for the minister and I'd like to speak, if I could, about the seniors housing program.

I see that we do have money contained within the budget for the seniors housing trust and I was wondering if the minister had a vision again as to the continuity of this fund, how it would grow, and in what increments?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, yes, we do have visions of this fund growing. First and foremost, we want to establish that there is a seniors housing trust fund and that we use the interest to fund the programs and keep the principal in the fund.

Mr. Keenan:      I thank the member for following through with a partial promise on their Liberal initiative to implement the New Democratic budget and its initiatives. Of course this is a very fine initiative of the New Democratic Party, of going out and working with the seniors, having seniors conferences, gathering them from across the land, I guess, and from across the territory to bring their concerns forth.

So, I applaud the minister for continuing on with that, although he did say something that tweaked my interest, which was a wish to keep the principal and spend the interest. I realize that the trust fund is for helping seniors with their homes and, in a lot of cases, to keep them at home, and I applaud the minister for that because, as the Health minister would attest, that's what we want. We want our seniors in their homes.

I was wondering at what rate this fund would grow and what would the principal be? When do they expect to be able to spend the interest? How much interest would there be, say, on a yearly basis? And how would the principal continue to grow so that we would be able to have more programs spin off?

I think, and I have talked to other seniors, and there is an expectation - pardon me, I said "other seniors", so I have put myself in a seniors program, but I'm still seven years away from that so I'll have to clarify that.

There are expectations that, at some point in time, they will be able to spend a large amount of money to make their home their home and keep it up. So if the minister could please explain to me just that point. How do they expect it to grow, and how much interest will be spent this year?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Presently, because of its very initial stages, we are working at a management plan and we will be bringing back more information during the spring sitting on how we will invest these dollars. But we will be making investments from the seniors housing trust, and those principles will come from that. As that seniors housing trust has more and more dollars in it, the principal rises higher. We expect that that will be the scenario.

Mr. Keenan:      I guess I have one last question on that. Did I hear a commitment from the minister that the minister would be bringing funds forth for this seniors housing trust in the spring sitting?

Hon. Mr. Jim: We will be working with the management plan, and we will be bringing that back to the spring sitting, identifying how we will invest the dollars.

Mr. Jenkins:      I just have a few questions in general debate. I am given to understand that the corporation has developed a comprehensive policy outlining how the corporation officials are to address tenant complaints. Would the minister table a copy of the policy?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Yes.

Mr. Jenkins:      The other area that is constantly brought to my attention is the issue surrounding staff housing in rural communities as being inadequate. It usually occurs in the Department of Education when they are attracting teachers to rural communities. They are expecting one thing and they receive quite substandard housing.

The other area of concern is the actual cost of utilities reflected to them. It doesn't appear to resemble what the tenants can expect to pay. It's usually considerably higher than what they are lead to believe.

With respect to staff housing, does the corporation have a policy of upgrading and enhancing staff housing and replacing it with much more adequate staff housing than currently exists? If the minister would be so kind as to outline his policy. I'm not asking him to stand on his feet, Mr. Chair, but if he could just send me over a copy of where the corporation is heading in this regard and when we can expect to see changes. That's what I'm looking for, Mr. Chair. I'd like an affirmative - yes, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Yes.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate? Seeing no further general debate, we'll proceed with line-by-line.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair:  We will now proceed to the Department of Health and Social Services.

Department of Health and Social Services - continued

Chair:  We are on page 8-3. We were still in general debate. I believe Mr. Jenkins had the floor. If the members will rely on my memory, I believe Mr. Jenkins had the floor.

Mr. Jenkins:      When we left general debate on Health and Social Services, the issue under discussion was the rural health care professionals and the attraction of them to the respective communities and whether this government has finally got its act together and developed a policy. The minister avoided all of the questions on that area, Mr. Chair. It would appear that the only policy that is emanating out of the minister's office is to hire doctors for rural Yukon on a contract basis, on a salaried basis. The fee-for-service doctors are no longer being considered for rural Yukon. Rather than get into a prolonged debate on the specific areas, I will go with specific questions that require a simple yes-or-no answer. Does the Department of Health and Social Services have a policy and funds in place to relocate doctors to Yukon - specifically rural Yukon? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      The Member for Klondike spent a lot of time during our last discussions about a lot of things regarding health care. I prepared about a 20-page response to some of the comments that the Member for Klondike has made. I realize that spending the time now to refute much of what the Member for Klondike has said would take time, but I am quite willing to give the member opposite - or the members opposite - a copy of my comments, because I believe that we must be efficient and we must move on.

A number of points were made, Mr. Chair, about things that are not necessarily what the information is. It tends to give another message out there, Mr. Chair, but at this point, I'm not willing to engage in that sort of I-said they-said type of thing. I think the line-by-line approach probably would be one way of maybe trying to come back to it.

No, we don't have a policy that says that we are going to do away with fee-for-service doctors. They are the main source of our support, Mr. Chair, in the territory. We only have two contract doctors in the total contingent of doctors here in the Yukon, so to say that we're moving into another era, at this point in time, we're not. We're open to any kinds of ideas or discussions and looking at the future, Mr. Chair, of course that's going to take negotiation and cooperation and support from all parties.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, my question was not answered. The question to the minister was this: does the department have funds budgeted and earmarked for the relocation of medical doctors to rural Yukon - yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Presently, at this very moment, the answer is no.

Mr. Jenkins:      Since the minister has come into office, has the department made any offer to any doctors to practice in rural Yukon on other than a contract or salaried basis, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      No, Mr. Chair. Since we have been in office, we have made no offer.

Mr. Jenkins:      The government has made a number of offers and sent contracts to doctors to move and relocate to rural Yukon to work on a contract basis. Now, that has been the case. There are two doctors who have recently received and were attracted to come and practise in Dawson, and they were initially on the understanding that they were going to come work on a fee-for-service basis and that they were going to come and work in a practice.

When it became known to the department, the department subsequently sent out a contract to each one of these doctors to work on a contract basis or a salary basis. Now, can the minister kindly confirm that information?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, that information is false. The whole area of compensation is an issue that I think is very important.

Unparliamentary language

Chair:  Order please. That is one word that we do not want to use in the House in almost any context. Could you please rephrase it as "wrong", "incorrect"?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      It is incorrect, Mr. Chair. This government has not changed any policies concerning the compensation of rural doctors or rural physicians. All Yukon general physician practitioners are private entrepreneurs. There are no general practitioners who are employees of the government. GPs can be compensated in one of two ways, and that is either a fee for service or on a contract.

For each medical service provided by a physician, a specific fee amount is paid. The Yukon government gives the doctor a certain amount of money. That's roughly $63.40. These fees are for services arrived at through periodic negotiations with the Department of Health. This is for a complete physical exam, I'm sorry. I'm just giving an example of what happens. So, it's a fee for service, Mr. Chair.

The fee schedule includes additional compensation for times when a physician is called out to provide services after normal hours. For example, if a GP has to attend a motor vehicle emergency at 2 a.m., they might receive $63.40 for examining the accident victim, plus an additional $67.10 if the physician was already at the emergency department, or $110.70 if they had come in from their home.

These fees and increases are bargained in good faith with the YMA bargaining team.

A doctor from Dawson participated in most of the recent bargaining. The current agreement was negotiated with the YMA last spring and resulted in a three-year agreement with a 3.9-percent increase over three years. The agreement is in place until March 31, 2002.

The fee-for-service physicians are free to come and leave the Yukon and open and close practices as they wish. They can work whatever hours they feel to suit their personal and financial needs. They can backfill their absences with replacement doctors or with a locum as they see fit. The government does not restrict the number of physicians who can practice in any areas of the Yukon - does not.

The second method of compensation is the alternate payments, which were negotiated in the last round of bargaining with the Yukon Medical Association. An alternate payment allows the government to negotiate with an individual or group of physicians for a fixed annual payment, as well as time off, education leave, and other benefits in return for a guaranteed service level - and I have to underline "guaranteed," Mr. Chair.

The service level is monitored through shadow billing of the fee-for-service schedule. Currently, we have a physician in Faro and Mayo utilizing this payment method. These are recorded in the government's contract registry as contract payments and not salaried physicians' positions. And Dr. Bakri in Mayo was the doctor that was last hired for a contract position.

Most jurisdictions have already moved toward the alternate fee methodology in some form or another. Thirty percent of Newfoundland GPs are now paid through some form of an alternate payment mechanism, as are 25 percent of Manitoba and B.C. doctors. Recently, most Yellowknife physicians moved to a similar payment scheme. In rural communities, this contractual arrangement has proven to be a better way to serve the residents and at the same time provide the physician with some guarantee of compensation and time off. It also works well for the government, because the level of community service, including physician on-call services, is guaranteed. It also makes the best use of our highly trained nurse practitioners when they can work in a primary care model of this type.

As government, we look for a model of comprehensive, integrated and interdisciplinary care of the patient that best fit the community needs. We do not force this model of health care onto any community. The Town of Haines Junction investigated the model of health care and physician service delivery to see if they wished to see it in their community. And at this point, they have decided to go back to the visiting physician model.

The government will do its best to assist them or assist any community in securing the services of visiting physicians by putting out inquiries for Whitehorse physicians to provide that support. Currently in Dawson City, there are two physicians. We believe that the town actually needs three full-time positions and have encouraged the current resident positions to recruit a third to join their practice. The physicians have indicated to me that they will not take after-hours on call. We do not compensate for after-hours calls. We respect the Dawson doctors' decision and the reasons for being unavailable for after-hours on call. We do feel responsible for trying to provide adequate after-hours service. We have done so by beefing up the services of the nurse practitioners in Dawson. The nurse practitioners have managed very, very well with the additional strain and pressure. The government also provides this Dawson practice with a free office from which they operate their practice. And my understanding is that the city itself provides a free house to the doctors as well, which is in good faith and good support.

In the negotiations with the Dawson doctors, the alternate payment clause was introduced into the previous Yukon Medical Association agreement. The Dawson physician practice approached the government to financially address their on-call issues. They have defined on call as an alternate payment falling under this clause of the agreement. We have had discussions about this issue on more than a dozen occasions and have exchanged many pieces of correspondence and offers. I personally met with the Dawson doctors on two occasions. The most recent meeting being with my deputy occurred on November 3, 2000. Numerous financial offers have been exchanged over this time period. With the permission of the Dawson practice, I would be most pleased to share with the member opposite the financial offers that have been exchanged, but I can indicate that the financial offers from the government side of things for a year of service was well over half-a-million dollars, when overhead is taken into consideration.

We have not asked these physicians to become YTG employees. The compensation alternative method contract does not have to be with the individual physician. We have indicated that we would be prepared to pay a lump sum to the corporate practice, including an overhead component, in return for a guaranteed service level. The Dawson practice can choose to recruit physician staff and deploy their staff as long as they meet our requested minimum overall community medical care requirements. The department has not interfered in the Dawson doctors' hiring pursuits. Some other doctors have contacted the department because they were interested in possibly moving to Dawson on an alternate payment basis. The department did not pursue discussions with those interested physicians when it came to our attention, but the Dawson physicians indicated they preferred to make their own private arrangements.

Our objectives and guarantees of services that are used in our discussions with the Dawson doctors are as follows: assured 24-hour local physician availability for emergencies; sustainable working conditions with adequate time off-call, provided through an established schedule utilizing the services of three resident physicians; reasonable compensation in a comprehensive package that recognizes the provision of services in a rural community with a one-in-three call rotation; continuity of care offered in a team environment where the nurse practitioners and physicians share patient care and information, each within their scope of practice; local diagnosis and treatment, utilizing local and visiting resources where economically feasible to do so; the utilization of the physician's diagnostic and treatment skills within the capacity of the Dawson City health care staff and facility.

These objectives were communicated to the Dawson doctors on November 20. To date, no formal acceptance or rejection has occurred.

So, what are our options? There seem to be four options available. The Dawson practice could accept the last offer made by the government, which contained minimal acceptable service guarantee. The physicians can remain on fee for service but revert to how the physicians practised a couple of years ago, when they did take after-hours on call. Things can remain exactly as they are and continue to rely on the very dependable and excellent services of our nurses, our nurse practitioners for daytime and after-hour services. The final option is to try to secure the services of three new physicians for the community.

I think the important part here is to work with the current physicians, trying to build on where we want to go in the future, supporting what their needs are. We recognize their community and family needs. We must realize that we cannot one-off contracts in the territory. That's exactly what happened in B.C. and their system is in a complete shambles because of the one-off process.

We are quite willing to sit down with all our doctors and look at what we can do to enhance and better their situation. We are more than open, Mr. Chair, to trying to solve these issues, but we cannot one-off contracts in various parts of the territory, otherwise our system will fall apart.

I can carry on but I'll stop there. I just felt that I must get the information out there, Mr. Chair, because I'm constantly going to be asked the same question. At least, the information is in Hansard right now.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, let's just examine what the minister has said. What he said is that, currently, through the Yukon, that we have most of the doctors on a fee-for-service basis. We have two on contract - salaried doctors - and one is in Faro and one is in Mayo.

Now, there's a shortage of health care practitioners - both doctors and nurses in Dawson. The minister hasn't been able to address the shortcomings in either one of the areas. And one he's directly responsible for, Mr. Chair; the other one, the local doctors are trying to recruit - without success.

And the other thing that the minister says is that there's no restriction on the number of doctors that can go into any community. Well, that might be the fact, but let's address that one initially. What the system does is deny that doctor a billing number. So, really, he can't go to work until he has a billing number under the system. And that was the case in Dawson City, where the department would only issue two billing numbers for the longest time. After tremendous pressure was brought to bear on the department, they finally relented and issued a third billing number.

So, on the one hand, the minister can stand up and say, "We have no restrictions on doctors as to where they work and how they work. They can work anywhere, and any amount of doctors." But the bottom line, Mr. Chair, is that the government just refuses to issue another billing number for that doctor. So, they're really there on their own, and if they can't bill the system and can't get paid for the majority of the work they have, there's no reason for them being there.

There is another area, Mr. Chair, where I'd like to take exception to what the minister said. The only option that really has been offered to the doctors in Dawson is an all-inclusive contract that can either go to the practice or can be shared among the three doctors, and it's a contract. It's not on a fee-for-service basis. Nothing of the sort.

And what is being advocated and suggested is that Dawson revert to the model of health care that was in existence in the 1970s and early 1980s, which didn't work, Mr. Chair. A lot of problems arose out of it. A lot of problems arose out of the sharing of information about who was in charge. In fact, the federal official who was in charge of things at that time, Dr. George Walker, used to have to make steady trips to Dawson just to sort out the personality problems within his own staff.

And that got to be a problem. And what the minister is suggesting is a return to that system, Mr. Chair. Well, we have to have a health care system in place that works, that delivers adequate health care.

Now, the issue is not the amount of money that's being spent. The issue is how it's being spent and how the government wishes to spend it, Mr. Chair.

No consideration is being given to the residents of, specifically in this question, my community who require health care. And my community is, incidentally, Mr. Chair, the second largest community in the Yukon, population-wise. Watson Lake has a full-blown hospital, a full complement of nurses. It's being somewhat reduced because the federal Liberals and the Yukon Liberals have managed to destroy the economic base of Watson Lake, so there's less and less requirement of the health care system there, Mr. Chair. But Dawson is still struggling and still surviving. But the provision of health care, which has now been totally transferred to Government of the Yukon, is now their responsibility, Mr. Chair. And with regard to the provision of doctors for the community, the avenue that the minister is advocating is one of two approaches.

Number one, work on a contractual basis and a contractual basis alone, or, number two, pack up your bags and get out of town and we'll attract some new physicians. And I'm sure the minister knows now what kind of a problem he's going to have in attracting new doctors, especially into rural Yukon, Mr. Chair. So these are serious, serious problems here, Mr. Chair.

And furthermore, there's an actual shortage of nurse practitioners overall. A lot of the programs were cancelled as a consequence of the shortage of nurses. And this is starting to reflect on the level of service that is being provided by the health care system to the community of Dawson.

And furthermore, Mr. Chair, we've got an increased number of medevacs coming out of Dawson. A few years ago, we had a full staff of doctors and we had a full workforce. In fact, at some times in the summer, we had a workforce out in the mining sector of approximately 1,000 individuals, Mr. Chair.

Well, that doesn't exist any more. And the resulting accidents that occur in that large a workforce are just not happening today. So the demands on the health care system are down. The demand on the health care system by our visiting population still exists and is still growing. But the workforce, being what it is, has significantly reduced demand on the health care system, Mr. Chair. We currently do not have two doctors in Dawson as the minister stated - we have two doctors residing there, but only one working full time. One is a part-time parent, Mr. Chair. And the minister is going to respond that that's their choice - I'm sure. And it's their choice not to accept on-call calls. But after you review all of this, this minister isn't being reasonable in his approach to addressing the situation. He knows that he has a problem, but what we see is the same position advanced now under this replacement for Dave Sloan - same position. No change.

So what drives the system? We can't seem to go back and get a handle on it. But what drives the system is usually the patient input.

But neither one of these areas is being adequately addressed under the watch of this minister, Mr. Chair.

Chair:  Order please. The time being 4:30, do members wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Chair:  Now, in the spirit of Christmas, I've been informed that the Liberal caucus wish to present presents over to the opposition parties. We will take an extra five minutes and take a 15-minute break.

Chair:  I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will continue with general debate on Health.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, I have just a couple of comments to respond to the Member for Klondike.

First, the billing numbers were removed two years ago. At one time, Mr. Chair, you had to request a billing number and the YMA and the government either worked together on granting it or not granting it. But two years ago, the billing number process was removed, so there's no such thing in place right now. A doctor can come here and set up shop anywhere in the Yukon and apply for a billing number.

Another point, Mr. Chair, is that the Member for Klondike talks about the model being 30 years old, that back in the 1970s this was the model that was in place. I can reassure the Member for Klondike that this is the 21^st century model, using primary care, nurses and doctors working in partnership because of our need, because of the problems with recruitment, the problem of having trained doctors and having enough trained doctors to go around throughout Canada.

So this is why, Mr. Chair, from the College of Family Physicians of Canada, their recommendation is - and it comes straight from them - to ensure the highest standards of training certification and maintenance of proficiency for family physicians, educating and informing the public about healthful living, supporting research and disseminating knowledge, and championing the rights of every Canadian.

Representing 15,000 family doctors across the country, the association is the collective voice of family medicine in Canada. Its members are committed to the four principles of family medicine: the patient-doctor relationship is central to all we do; family physicians must be skilled physicians; family physicians should be a resource to a patient population; and family medicine is a community-based discipline, which underlines again the process of working in partnership. The recommendation is to work in partnership.

The third point, Mr. Chair, just to remind the Member for Klondike that I have shared this with the member before, is that medevacs from Dawson are down, not up. We have statistical evidence, which I can provide for the Member for Klondike, that the medevac trips from Dawson over the past six months are down, not up. I believe that there are obviously some good practices being put into place in the City of Dawson. Hopefully we can move ahead and try to build for the future because we have to. We're caught in a situation now, right across Canada, where we have to look at the 21^st century and try to build for that future.

Mr. Jenkins:      The fact still remains: the offer on the table for the doctors in Dawson is one offer and one way only. That's the government way, and that is working on a contract basis and on a contract basis only, to be in a salaried position to the Government of the Yukon. That's it. That's where we're going. This government has advanced the same, same scenario to the doctors in Dawson, with a couple little twists.

But the bottom line remains that this government does not have in place a policy to attract and retain health care professionals specifically for rural Yukon. They do not have funds in place to relocate health care professionals in rural Yukon. They do not have any funds in place to recruit and relocate locums to rural Yukon.

There's a whole series of areas that this government has not addressed under the umbrella of this new Liberal government, Mr. Chair, and it's a sad day for Yukon. The only way this government wants to proceed is to have doctors on salary. That's it.

The model that is being suggested is a model from the 1970s and early 1980s, and the minister only has to consult with his officials. History can't be rewritten. This minister is attempting to rewrite history.

History is a wonderful teacher. You go and look at the systems that you have had in place in the past and see what you can do to improve upon them and why they were put in place and subsequently dismantled.

But I am not going to get anywhere with this minister. What is going to happen at the end of the day is that we are probably going to lose our doctors in Dawson, who are some of the longest serving health care professionals in rural Yukon. That will be a sad day because, given the treatment that they are receiving from this government and from this minister, they are just going to pick up their bags and leave. Because with their skills and abilities, they have a very, very marketable commodity. And the minister should be warned that, given the shortage of these kinds of individuals, it is going to be extremely difficult to replace them. And then we are going to get into an open-door policy with doctors rotating through Dawson on a weekly or a monthly basis.

I can see it happening again. It happened under the federal Liberal initiatives and it is now happening again under this government's initiatives. We are not going anywhere with the provision of health care. I guess this minister just doesn't have a feel for his responsibilities.

Now one of the other very, very important areas of critical importance is what is going on in our group homes. Now, there was recently a study completed, and it was a study done by - and excuse me if I get the pronunciation wrong - Gail Trujillo, and the report was a safety audit on the Klondike group home. Could the minister table a copy of that report?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, we'll consider that. At this point, I have not seen the report. And until we can really look at it and find out what's in it - if there's some confidential material in there, we'll not be able to have that for public knowledge - but yes, I will consider it.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, I'd suggest to the minister that the report is concluded, it's not in a draft form, it's there, it was presented to his department on November 30. And after the minister reads it, if it doesn't ring alarm bells and it doesn't prompt an independent public inquiry into the affairs of this component of the health care system, I don't know what will, Mr. Chair. Because it's a very alarming report. It's a very damning report of the department. And I'm simply appalled that the minister and his senior officials have not read this report at this juncture, because it's a report that spells out very succinctly that the responsibilities for the problems for the children in care do not totally rest with the Gibbs Group Home. They are also stemming from direction provided by the government itself.

We've got real serious problems, and I'm looking for a commitment from the minister on the floor of the House today that, after reading this report, he will provide reasons why he's not going to call a public inquiry, if he chooses to not do so, Mr. Chair. Will the minister table the report, and then if he's not going to call a public inquiry into the affairs of the group home, will he give his reasons why he's not proceeding in that direction, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, again it's one of those things I have not read, so I cannot comment on the report and I cannot say what I will say or what I will think or what I will do. First of all, I have to read the report and, being an open and transparent government as we said we are and will be, we will do what is best for the people of the Yukon.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, Mr. Chair, that the minister hasn't read the report some several weeks after it has been delivered - two weeks. It's a major initiative. This report is probably one of the most damning reports I have heard of on the affairs of the operation of group homes, and most of it points the finger clearly at the department - clearly at the department.

Now, what steps is the minister going to take? I would assume that he's first going to read the report. Could the minister outline for the House the next steps he's going to take after he reads the report?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, I'm rather shocked that the Member for Klondike has a copy of the report when we haven't had a chance to even look at it. I'm not sure what connections the Member for Klondike has. Obviously there are some concerns in there, but I cannot comment on them when I haven't read the report.

As I said before, being an open and responsible and transparent government, we will ensure that we will do what is best for Yukoners. We don't have secrets. We want everything to be out in the open, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      I thank the minister for his response. And for the record, Mr. Chair, I do not have a copy of the report. I have been somewhat apprised of its contents, and what I have learned about this report I find shocking and alarming. It clearly points out that the minister is not doing his job. It clearly identifies the problems within the department that must be addressed. It clearly identifies that things are not going in a manner that they should be, because the prime responsibility of the department is the welfare of the children in its custody, and that is not of utmost consideration.

What we are seeing is, because of this minister's inability to address his responsibilities, most of these facilities being taken in-house. From all appearances, once they are in-house and under the government wing, anything that goes wrong or is not occurring in a proper manner can be carefully overlooked, circumvented or just ignored.

Mind you, some of the costs that are being incurred to provide the same services that were previously provided by the private sector in the provision of group homes are alarming. They are alarming in that we're probably not even getting the same level of care, but the costs are being spread around from two different areas so that we carefully conceal a lot of the costs we are incurring in labour. And all we see are the upfront costs for setting up the program in-house. We don't see the total cost any more. Whereas when we have an arm's-length contract with a group home, all of the costs, other than the monitoring costs, of operating that group home are upfront.

So, the minister must be aware of what is occurring within his department in this area - he must be aware, Mr. Chair. When is he going to pay heed and recognize there's a lot of problems and call an independent public inquiry into this area of his portfolio, Mr. Chair? That's the only way that the air can be cleared and the responsibility clearly delineated as to who's responsible for what problems. And it also can clearly outline who is going to do what to address the shortcomings, Mr. Chair.

Will the minister do the proper thing and call a full public inquiry into this area?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Just a couple points. I'm appalled that the Member for Klondike is an expert on a report that he hasn't even read. I'm appalled - making accusations or making statements here that a report is about certain aspects of government and the Member for Klondike hasn't read the report. So, I'm really concerned about those kinds of fear-mongering. As I mentioned before, the Member for Klondike is famous for that.

No, I will not call a public inquiry at this point, Mr. Chair. We have to do our homework. It's like everything else. We don't knee-jerk. We do what is right. We are going to make the right decisions for the people of the Yukon. We are not going to knee-jerk into some kind of reaction because the Member for Klondike has not read a report that he knows so much about. So, I'm really confused here, how the Member for Klondike is an expert on something that he hasn't read. I haven't read it, so I can't make any statements on it, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, what I told the minister is that I do not have a copy of the report. That's what I told the minister. Now, if the minister wants to interpret that as I haven't read the report or parts of the report or haven't been apprised of it, he may do so.

His understanding of a language he has supposedly been a teacher of, is very, very short, Mr. Chair.

Now, I would urge the minister once again to give careful consideration to calling a public inquiry into this area because it is growing more and more alarming all the time as to the problems that are arising in this area of his portfolio. The minister obviously is not properly addressing this area, Mr. Chair. And the only way to clear the air is to address this part of his portfolio with an inquiry.

I called for the inquiry previously in Question Period. I have gone to great lengths to outline the problem for the minister, but it is like the situation with the doctors in Dawson. He goes merrily charging off down the road, not knowing full well what he is intending to do, other than he has a road map that has been prepared for him that he has bought into or he has been sold, and he is not to deviate from that course.

Now, at the end of the day, common sense has to prevail because of paramount importance in this area is the health and welfare of the children in custody. Because what appears to be happening is that as soon as these individuals reach the age of majority, they are out the door into society and they are no longer the department's problems - they are going to become another department's problems. And the minister has an opportunity to do something - do something right. Now, why is he choosing to ignore this problem? Why is the minister choosing to ignore this problem, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I will take that under advisement. I hear the Member for Klondike and I am always willing to listen. But at this point, I will not commit myself. I have to have all the facts, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      The pioneer utility grant is an area that needs attention in the Yukon. It's an area under the minister's portfolio. It's an area that hasn't been indexed, hasn't been looked at for a considerable length of time, Mr. Chair. Is there some initiative to index this? Because our party's position was that we were going to increase it by a set amount and then index it.

Now, given the amount of fuel and the cost of fuel, when are we going to see a good, initial jump in this, Mr. Chair? It should be in place for this winter. Just to index it like it has been done is going to kick in after the fact. But if the minister were to look at when this rate structure was set, it was some years ago now and it needs an initial increase or boost to accurately reflect the cost of fuels used for heating purposes, Mr. Chair. And it's an area that our seniors need help with.

Now, other than indexing it, when is the minister going to put a boost to this amount to the pioneer utility grant? When is that going to happen?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, I would agree with the Member for Klondike that this is a problem; it's a problem for many of our seniors. Presently, our government is looking at the pioneer utility grant as well as looking at many other energy support things that we can do. Momentarily, or in the next week, once we're out of here - mind you, that's one of the problems, Mr. Chair. We haven't been able to get out of here to do the things that really are important, like look at the energy process. That again is under advisement. We're working on it. We hope in the new year to have some clear direction in all these areas. So I hear the Member for Klondike.

Mr. Jenkins:      If the minister and his colleagues were to answer the questions in a straightforward manner and not waffle all around them, Mr. Chair, we'd probably move along quite swiftly and we could have concluded quite some time ago. It's the same with the Liberal backbencher who is responsible as government House leader. If that area had been addressed, the business of the House could have moved forward in a much more forthright manner than it has. But seeing the problems that have been encountered and the very, very definitive role that this is the way, the only way, and we're not compromising, we're not changing, we're not looking at alternatives - we're hearing the same message from the government House leader, we're hearing the same message from the Minister of Health and Social Services, and we're hearing the same message from some of the other ministers.

What we are here to undertake, Mr. Chair, is the well-being of Yukoners, and that's the responsibility we're charged with. In opposition, it's our responsibility to hold the government of the day accountable, and it's getting very hard to do, given that they're not being accountable in so many different areas and not wanting to recognize their respective roles in the areas that they're being remiss in.

So, at the end of the day, we have a critical shortage of health care professionals, the government of the day has no policy to attract and retain health care professionals to Yukon, specifically to rural Yukon, no money budgeted for their travel, no money budgeted for locums to come up and serve in rural Yukon. We haven't even read the study on group homes that has been out now for a couple of weeks, probably because it hasn't even been brought to the minister's attention or the department wants to hide it. I don't know which it is, Mr. Chair.

The report is clearly identifying the shortcomings of the Government of Yukon and the Department of Health and Social Services in this area, and the buck stops with the minister, Mr. Chair. That he hasn't read the report, I find appalling.

When are we going to find some movement on this minister's part to address these issues?

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Chair, I move that we report progress.

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Tucker that we do now report progress.

Motion agreed to

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

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Tucker that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Motion agreed to

Speaker:      I will now call the House to order.

May the House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?

Chair's report

Chair: Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 3, Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01, and directed me to report progress on it.

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

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      I declare the report carried.

Motion to sit beyond normal hour of adjournment

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Speaker, I move

THAT the Assembly be empowered to sit beyond 6:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering Bill No. 3, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01, and Bill No. 31, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, in the Committee of the Whole;

AND for permitting the House to consider third reading of Bill No. 3 and Bill No. 31;

AND for receiving the Commissioner to give assent to the bills passed by this House.

Speaker:     It has been moved by the government House leader

THAT the Assembly be empowered to sit beyond 6:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering Bill No. 3, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01, and Bill No. 31, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, in the Committee of the Whole;

AND for permitting the House to consider third reading of Bill No. 3 and Bill No. 31;

AND for receiving the Commissioner to give assent to the bills passed by this House.

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Speaker, I move that the House review this motion favorably so we can expedite business of the House. Thank you.

Mr. Fentie:      We, on the official opposition side, see no reason to oppose this motion. It is our feeling that we should be able to complete the public's business in this Legislative Assembly this evening, probably by 6:00 p.m.; however, we will support this motion to extend hours if need be.

Mr. Jenkins:      We have no quarrel with extending hours. It must be pointed out, though, that the current government of the day is taking more than lengthy time to respond to questions and prolonging debate and are dragging out with superfluous points of order on many, many occasions.

In order to expedite the business of the House we will support this motion. We feel that we can probably wrap up by 6:00 p.m. tonight, Mr. Chair.

Speaker:      Does any other member wish to be heard? Are you prepared for the question? Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

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

Motion to sit beyond normal hour of adjournment agreed to

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

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:  I now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will continue with general debate on Health and Social Services, Bill No. 3, Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01.

Bill No. 3 - Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01 - continued

Department of Health and Social Services - continued

Chair:  Mr. Keenan has the floor.

Mr. Keenan:      I just have a few questions. It's unfortunate that I wasn't here for the debate earlier on in the House, so I do have a few questions. I would like to thank my colleague for doing some good work and exposing this government for what they are. And I think that is very self-apparent.

I've heard drivel from the minister opposite about speaking about what's important. I've heard drivel about knee-jerk. I've heard the minister say that he was out knocking on doors talking to people, people on social assistance, people needing help, people not on social assistance by choice, people by circumstance. And God forbid that it would not happen to anybody in this room, but when it does happen, it is not a bad thing. In most people's minds - and in the minds of 99.9 percent of the people on social assistance, it is just a certain stall in life - or maybe "stall" is not a correct word, but it is certainly a place in their life that they will get through.

And so we, as a government, put in place a budget that the Liberals have adopted as their own. They have taken a pair of scissors to it and cut out where the help was needed most, and that is in the hands of the people who are in places where they sometimes don't have a choice - they're not there by choice.

And I asked the question in the House. And the minister says he's out talking to people - and that he even alluded to the point that people were happy to be in that station of life. That was a very poor choice of words - a very poor choice of words - because I understand now that, as the minister is knocking on doors - he wasn't knocking on doors in his riding, he was knocking on doors getting the Member for Faro elected, which is good. So, there's another discrepancy that should be straightened out.

Now, the Minister of Health and Social Services said that he would be bringing and introducing to the House what they were going to do with the SA rates during this sitting. Well, this sitting now could possibly go for another 40 minutes or it could go beyond 40 minutes.

So I would like to know just when this rate increase that was promised to be brought to this House during this sitting will be implemented?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      For the record, I'd like to correct the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes. Yes, I have to admit that I was out knocking on doors in Faro, but I was also knocking on many doors in Porter Creek North in the federal election, and I met many of my people - people that supported me and people that believe in what we're doing.

Mr. Chair, nobody wants to be on social assistance; I am positive of that. So, for the member opposite to make that kind of allusion that I'm happy that people are on social assistance is false. And, Mr. Chair, the objective here is that social assistance is a last resort. It's there for those people who need it. It's not there for the long-term; it's a short-term process. Unfortunately, there are some people who need it over the long term, and we're there to support that.

The question on support for increasing the rates, that is now under advisement. It's in a Cabinet submission, and it will be coming to caucus, Cabinet and Management Board very shortly, and we will be making a decision on the very issue that the member opposite has raised many times.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Chair, that is awful. One of the minister's favourite words is "appalled." Well, I'm disgusted. I'm absolutely disgusted with this minister. And I'd like to just point out right at this point in time that I don't believe this minister won his seat. I believe that the seat was lost by the Yukon Party's government, and they had no real other choice than a familiar face, and maybe this familiar face will be one of us and work for us. And if there are people within that riding that need help and the government turned around and said that they would implement that help as identified, then that is disgusting that he would stand on his feet and say that at this point in time - absolutely disgusting.

And now it is going to be coming to the Management Board, and it's going to go through the Management Board.

I don't know why the member across is smirking about this. He calls me a bad actor and a great stage presence. Well, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I represent people and I feel for people and we, as a Cabinet and as a government, when we were in authority, looked at just these issues.

Now, the member opposite is going to put this right through the Christmas season so that the one little bit of cheer that people might be able to have and bring home to their very quiet Christmas parties or their quiet Christmases is going to be stolen by the grinch from Porter Creek North. That's an awful thing, Mr. Chair. It's doggone awful.

So, I'd like to ask the member opposite if it's going to be retroactive.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Chair, that question was not answered.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Chair, I'd like to point out and let the record show that the minister refused to stand on his feet and answer a direct question about a retroactive payment to the people who need it most.

And, yes, Mr. Chair, that will be a wonderful mail-out for the people in Porter Creek North, Porter Creek South, and the Yukon in general - that the minister would not stand on his feet, that the minister, who makes some $70,000 or $69,000 a year, would be able to sit, roll his thumbs at Christmas time, rub his belly and burp up some turkey while others are suffering.

I asked a simple question - whether or not it would be retroactive - and the minister stands. I'll give him one more chance to answer that question.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Keenan:      Thank you very much for the mail-out from the Member for Porter Creek.

I'd like to ask the minister if he would get on his feet and speak about the doctors and how we get the numbers for doctors within the territory? Is it on an FTE basis or is it done on a personnel basis?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, we don't hire doctors. We either have contract doctors or we have doctors who work for a fee for service. So if 300 doctors want to come to Whitehorse tomorrow, they can come to Whitehorse and set up shop. We don't hire doctors, per se.

I think, unless there is something more that the member opposite wants - we don't directly hire doctors, other than ask them to take a contract in a couple of our communities.

Mr. Keenan:      Let me rephrase that question a bit simpler for the retired teacher, if I may. The minister issued a report card - a centrefold report card - speaking about the wonders of the health system. I asked the question during Question Period and I got browbeaten by the Minister of Education - and of course I always get beat up by the Member for Porter Creek North.

I am asking a question now. When we calculate the number of doctors, as a government, within the territory, is it done on an FTE basis or on a personnel basis?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Maybe the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes can clarify what he means by "personnel basis." I am not sure what the member opposite is trying to get at.

Mr. Keenan:      Yes, I will. Personnel - if there is a doctor in Watson Lake and there is a doctor in Teslin and there is a doctor here, is that three doctors or is it the number of full-time equivalents. Is it that number? Is it the actual warm bodies or is it the FTEs?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      It is my understanding that we use the Canadian institute numbers that are used across Canada to generate what the ratio is, and normally it is based on the support or the full-time equivalent of a doctor. If the doctor is operating as a full-time doctor, then that's one. If they are operating as a part-time, then it's not just a warm body, it's the actual service that is provided by that particular person.

That's the answer. I am not sure that it is the answer the member wants, but that is what I am picking up.

Mr. Keenan:      I am sorry, I missed the first part of the answer. Would the member please respond to the first part?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      The way the numbers are generated for the ratio of doctors per population - we use the Canadian standards. It's taken from the - I guess you would call it - the Canadian Institute of Health Information. This is used across the nation, and that's what our numbers are based on, using the same ratios and percentages based on population.

Mr. Keenan:      Are the nurses calculated in the same manner?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      We haven't got that full information, but we believe that it's using, again, Canadian figures, but that's something we could get back to the member opposite with - the actual way we generate those numbers.

Mr. Keenan:      I believe I'm getting closer to the information I need here, and I appreciate the information. Do you believe, though, that the information contained in the report card was misleading, because we do have a number of part-time nurses, doctors and relief nurses.

So, I would suggest that my question in Question Period was not to be brow-beaten, but to be answered. I'd like to congratulate the two ministers for a great spin job at that point in time. I think that's the spin of the session, actually. Congratulations for the spin of the session.

But I go back now to the question, are they FTEs? Is the equivalent of the part-time doctors - are they considered a .5 if they work half-time; .25 if they work quarter-time? Or is it personnel, and we have a doctor, even though the doctor works part time? A direct answer.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, it's my understanding that if a doctor is working part-time, half-time or whatever, they're considered a doctor. So the support that is given and the calculations are made on those particular figures. These are figures that are used across Canada. It's not just us using a unique approach toward calculating what our doctor-to-population ratio is. The figures used are from national standards, both for nurses and doctors. But I can get back to the member opposite with the conclusive evidence on that, but that seems to be the way it is.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, I would very much appreciate him getting back to me on that, because I don't think this is a unique approach. And I'm not asking about the rest of Canada; I'm asking about the Yukon. I do think with that answer that this is categorically the spin of the session, now, Mr. Chair.

I think that as we go through here, we'll start to understand that life is not as rosy as the minister would like it to be seen in the Yukon Territory. We do have a number of part-time folks that are in the medical fields, whether it's nurses or doctors, and if they're counted as full time, then that is very much a spin. It's not a unique approach.

I'd like to ask the minister on policy and travel if the minister would take into consideration, I guess, if I could, expanding on the policy and travel and especially the policy and travel for adults. At this point in time, it is done by maybe a set criteria, but it is certainly not criteria that is compassionate, and it could be accused of being a criteria that is personality-driven. We are not looking for a personality-driven approach to this policy; we're looking for something that's concrete - a benchmark that folks would be able to look at.

And I say this from real experience, because I have been working within ridings within Whitehorse - not soliciting, working at other people's request, to come to their homes. And I have gone to those people's homes, and there have been some tragic stories of adults suffering from terminal illnesses that are left in very hard spots. And I would ask the minister to show compassion and say, yes; that they would be able to look at this type of thing, so it is not personality-driven.

People are suffering from their partner's terminal illnesses and yet they don't have the resources to go. So I would like to ask the minister if the minister would consider expanding that policy or establishing as a policy and taking into consideration the adults and the nature of the problem I'm speaking of.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, a while back, we did table the policy that we have in place and the member opposite does have a copy of that as to when exceptions can be made.

The other question - I guess we're the only jurisdiction in Canada that provides any kind of travel for free, even in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, there is a deductible. I hear what the member opposite says. I think there is provision in there to provide those people who need accompaniment with that support and, at this point in time, we accept what's there and it seems to be working. My understanding is that it worked for the last government, Mr. Chair. All of a sudden we have to change everything, Mr. Chair, and I'm not too sure why we should change everything, because the last government didn't.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Chair, this is just a type of Rick-and-Rudy show that people are beginning to expect from this minister. We go for a walk, you say something sincerely, you ask him to take something into consideration, and you get thumped because you didn't do it - you didn't do this.

Let me explain about leadership. I am not in a leadership role at this point in time. I'm in an advisory role and I am asking, on behalf of people who are suffering. I am telling the minister, at this point in time as he converses with the deputy, to be listening - to be listening to me. I'm speaking on behalf of people that are suffering and this is a real case that I know of. It was brought to me and it's a tragic case - it's very, very tragic, and the minister must know of this and if the minister doesn't know of this case, well, that's another story.

But this is something that we cannot let slip through because it's sad and if we have a point to correct it at this time, then I would ask you to consider that, take it into context and to look at that. That's what I am asking. Not for a personality-driven policy that can be read to the left or to the right and then people suffer. That's what I'm asking. Will you consider putting it into stone and saying yea or nay so that people will have that understanding? And I know what goes on in the territories. I'm asking about the Yukon.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, I hear the member opposite. I am always willing to consider the future and consider how we can do government better. So I have heard the member opposite, but at this point in time, he has alerted me to a concern. We are not changing the policy at this point. There is flexibility there for those people who need it, but to say that we're going to make a big decision so that we encompass all these issues that the member opposite is suggesting, I have heard the member at this point, so it's under advisement. Again, we'll see where we go with it, but we're not changing the policy at this point.

Mr. Keenan:      In a previous life - there is paranoia. I don't know why the minister should be so afraid of just answering a simple question I am asking on behalf of people who are suffering. I did not ask it to be changed on the floor of this House. That's not what I asked. I asked for him to consider it.

Is there a time frame when the minister will consider it and get back to this House? Could I ask the minister if he would be able to look at it and consider it before the next session starts? And that starts in February at some point in time. Would the minister be able to come back to the House with a reply at that time?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, if we hadn't had this extra week of session, we would have been able to do lots of things. So there is a lot of pressure on getting the new budget - the first Liberal budget - in place. And to say that I'm going to just quickly drop everything else when we are already behind - at this point, as I said, it's under advisement. We'll look at it. I'm not going to promise that there will be anything in place for the next session.

Mr. Keenan:      Cold-hearted and excuse-driven, that's exactly what it is. I could stand on my feet here and say we wouldn't be here for an extra week. And there isn't an extra week because, Mr. Chair, the members opposite said there is an agreement in place.

We have been some 30-odd days in this session. The first week was taken up by looking after their own ridings and saying, "I have to get home by six-thirty in the evening." You stand here, and I believe it was the Minister of Community and Transportation Services who spoke belligerently to a lady behind me who stood on her feet and asked certain questions and was brow-beaten because the member opposite is saying exactly what we're saying - that we need this time to go home.

We spent days doing that, and what came of it? They didn't even hear what my colleague was saying. And what my colleague was saying was, "I'm practically miles from home and I don't get to enjoy that benefit." Yet, all it was was spoken down to, and that trend continues.

So if the minister would consider that and look at it, not just tuck it under his other briefing notes, I will accept that, because there are people slipping through the cracks. And I am not hearing these issues from my riding, I am hearing them from the ridings in Whitehorse. So I am sure that the Speaker will be able to inform you of other important areas or maybe areas that are important to the Speaker's riding and that you might be able to help the Speaker with. That's all I am asking. And I thank you for considering that.

On the pioneer utility grant, I heard the answer to the member opposite, and he will be looking at indexing it. Well, I would suggest that with $64 million in the bank at this point in time, as justified by the Auditor General, and with the lapses coming the way they are - we will have about the same amount in the piggy bank at the end of this fiscal year - we could do something at this point in time. Now, the minister says that we are going to look at indexing it. Well, I think that the very first thing that the member should do is to look at the people who are in that need. And I would ask the minister if he would consider that sooner rather than later, because there are folks out there who do need the help.

And the Minister of Health is also the minister of both health and social services all combined, but he speaks about prevention. And I agree with that. I can agree with the minister when he says that prevention is important for healthy lives so that you can enjoy your grandchildren in the future. I would think that this would be a part of that and that we could look ahead and do something for prevention so that we can keep the seniors and the elders in the communities in their homes, where we so much need them for the benefit of educating children, to just be a resource within the family, and to be a family unit. That's what I would like to see happen.

So would the minister maybe commit to upping that sooner rather than later so that we do not have people suffering? Fuel heating costs have gone up - some might be up by 20 percent - and they are continuing to escalate. There is an immediate need at this point in time. I would ask the minister if he would address that immediate need.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, we've already spent a lot of time discussing this issue, and for the clarification of the members opposite, I did not say we were going to index it. That was the Member for Klondike who said that. I did not say that.

But we are looking at it, Mr. Speaker. It's looked at in the total energy package, and the pioneer utility grant is very important to us. I agree with the member opposite. Keeping seniors in their own homes, working with them and supporting them is the issue that we want to ensure, because we know that they're better off there. So I definitely agree with the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, I thank the minister for that. And if you agree with me, then maybe you'll research it and do that. And I certainly appreciate that, and I know that the many seniors who are listening and will be advised of this by myself and others in the House will appreciate that, as well.

I'd like to speak about Tagish, if I may, just for a moment, here. Tagish, as you can see by the census that is done and statistics that are done, has, I believe, the highest number of seniors within the territory, congregated in one area. There is not a health centre or anything as such. There is an ambulance service, I believe, or a fire service within the community. There have been rumblings here and there as I've gone through the riding in the Tagish area in general about what they can do and what would the process be if they need to identify that they have a need of a doctor? And I thought that I would bring that to the minister and ask.

Is it possible to do a survey within the Tagish area? What is the process?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I'm going to be very honest with the member opposite. As a Health department, we are not doing anything at this point in terms of the Tagish area. We have not had any requests. We have had no letters or phone calls. I think the member opposite is looking for some way to build this, but I'm sorry. Again, we will look at whatever comes across our desks when it comes from those people.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Chair, that was not an answer. That was just a put-down. My God, the minister almost called me a liar because he hadn't heard it from others.

I do go to my riding, and I have heard this from people and seniors in the riding. I did not ask the minister if he would build a health centre or hire a doctor. I asked the minister what the process was for identifying and to talk to the people. I said, "Is it a survey?"

Would the minister simply answer the question about what the process for identification is, regardless of whether or not it came across his desk.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Keenan:      Yes, I would like to know if there is a process for identifying the health needs of senior citizens in the Tagish area.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, there is no formal process in place. The department doesn't have a formal process. We listen and discuss, and if there is a need, we will respond.

Mr. Keenan:      The minister has answered a question. There isn't a process. The member opposite has consistently taken delight in calling me, I guess, a person who really doesn't know what he's talking about. And if he hears this, well then, that's what he hears, and that's not really true because, by gosh, we haven't heard anything about it.

Well, let me say, Mr. Chair, that a great majority of the people in my riding supported me in the last territorial election. That certainly wasn't because of my glib way of talking. I guess it's because I go and talk to people and I listen to people. That's all I'm asking the minister to do. So, the minister did clarify a bunch of things for me this evening, and I'm very pleased with what the minister has been able to clarify.

I'm very, very disappointed, disillusioned and upset, emotionally and physically, that the minister would not even look to address the needs that are identified within the budget for social assistance recipients. To me, that is absolutely appalling and disgusting.

And it certainly shows me that there are two ministers of Health - one who listens attentively when the camera is on him, and the other, when the camera is not on him, sits back and lampoons everything that the political system is. Thank you very much for being what you are. It will be easily exposed.

Chair:  I would remind members to refer their remarks through the Chair.

Is there any further general debate?

Seeing no further general debate, we will proceed line by line.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Chair:  It seems that members wish to consider the entire budget read and passed. I still have to go through the formalities of going through the total O&M.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair:  Committee will now return to Bill No. 3, Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01, and proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

On Schedule A

Chair:  No one can go anywhere. We will take a two-minute recess while we wait for the minister to move this out of Committee.

Recess

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 3 out of Committee without amendment.

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Duncan that we move Bill No. 3, Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01, out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Chair:  We will now proceed to Bill No. 31, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act.

Bill No. 31 - An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act - continued

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I have an amendment for tabling that may address the concerns the members opposite have expressed with clause 226.

Chair:  We'll just get the amendment and read it in.

The way this can work, in the quickest way, is that when we get to this clause, Ms. Buckway may read the amendment at that point, when we go through clause by clause. We could proceed faster and there won't have to be debate on this specific amendment, right now.

Do you want to read the proposed amendment?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I move

THAt Bill No. 31, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be amended by adding the following clause immediately after clause 20 on page 9:

"Section 20.1 The act is amended by adding the following section immediately after section 226.

Chair:  Is it the wish of the members to deal with this at the time as it comes up or do you want to deal with this immediately?

Mr. McRobb:     Dealing with this at the time in clause-by-clause debate is fine with us.

Mr. Jenkins:      I had a similar type of amendment that read, "The officers prescribed by the Commissioner in Executive Council in subsection 226.1 shall not be permitted to carry firearms in the exercise of powers under this act." In the way the amendment is read there, it wouldn't exclude all categories, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I disagree with the member opposite. In the definitions, "peace officer" means a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - period, full stop.

Chair:  Do we wish to deal with this clause-by-clause, or, Mr. Jenkins, do you want to deal with this now? Is there any further general debate? Okay. We'll proceed now with clause-by-clause on the bill.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Chair:  Can we consider all clauses up to clause 20.1 as cleared and carried?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

On Clauses 1 to 20

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Chair:  We will run off copies for you. We'll take a two-minute recess until this is run off.

I just got them. I didn't see them here.

Recess

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

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, I do have some concerns with the way the amendment is worded - "an officer who is not a peace officer." "Peace officer" encompasses more than just members of the RCMP and can include municipal police forces. Where is this specifically stated? Could the minister please put that on the record?

And I don't have a copy of the definitions before me, so I'm at a loss.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      In the definitions to the act, "peace officer" means a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. So nobody else is covered.

Chair:  Procedurally, Ms. Buckway, because the last time that you read it in it was for information in general debate. I will need you to actually read the amendment into the record now.

Amendment proposed

Hon. Ms. Buckway:     The amendment that I am moving is

THAT Bill No. 31, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be amended by adding the following clause immediately after clause 20 on page 9:

"20.1 The Act is amended by adding the following section immediately after section 226.

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms.

THAT Bill No. 31, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be amended by adding the following clause immediately after clause 20 on page 9:

"20.1 The Act is amended by adding the following section immediately after section 226.

'226.1 An officer who is not a peace officer must not carry a firearm while performing their duties under this Act.'"

Chair:  Is there any further debate on this?

Mr. McRobb:      Well, this amendment goes partway to satisfying our concerns about this legislation.

Mr. Chair, we do have some other concerns but they are minor, and we propose to deal with them when the government reintroduces further amendments in the future.

As for the rest of the bill, most of the measures are housekeeping measures that we have no problem with. Some of them are designed to make our highways safer, and certainly we are in support of that. So in that spirit, Mr. Chair, we will support this amendment and be voting for the bill.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, I'm not a hundred percent comfortable with the peace officer, because if you look for the enforcement of any bylaw made by a municipality under the act: "A municipality may, by bylaw, confer on an officer or employee of the municipality the powers of a peace officer." Now, how are we sure that it's only solely and exclusively members of the RCMP in this regard? Is the definition contained in this act, solely and exclusively? That's the only area that's covering it off because we could, and do, have peace officers in many other categories.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, there is no intention to have anyone other than a member of the RCMP using a firearm under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no intention whatsoever.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, the intention of this minister might be one way, Mr. Chair, but at the end of the day, that minister is not going to be there forever, and things can be changed very, very easily in the regulations. I do have some grave concerns with the way it's worded. I thought perhaps the House might give consideration to an amendment that reads as follows: that the officers prescribed by the Commissioner in Executive Council in subsection 226 shall not be permitted to carry firearms in the exercise of powers under this act.

Now, perhaps that is an easier way to express it, Mr. Chair, and to provide some certainty because it's a definite no, where it's wide open the other way, and definitions can change. The minister is on record as saying, "It's just a member of the RCMP." I think it could be stretched and expanded on, but we'll clear it.

Chair:  Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Amendment agreed to

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I will file a copy of a letter to the critics for this department and to the Deputy Clerk: Officers appointed to administer and enforce the Motor Vehicles Act, "Further to information I have provided in the Legislature during November 2000, I wish to provide you with a further assurance and confirmation that no officer, other than a member of the RCMP, will carry or will be authorized to carry a firearm in the performance of duties under the Motor Vehicles Act."

Unanimous consent re Bill No. 31 - clauses deemed to have been read and carried

Chair:  For my understanding, then, do we have full agreement from the House - and there has to be unanimous agreement - that the rest of the act is considered read and cleared?

All Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Chair:  Unanimous agreement has been granted.

On Clauses 21 to 28

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I move Bill No. 31, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be reported out of Committee with amendment.

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Buckway that Bill No. 31, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be moved out of Committee with amendment.

Motion agreed to

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

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

Motion agreed to

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 31, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, and directed me to report it with amendment.

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

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      I declare the report carried.

Government Bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

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

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

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 3, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now read a third time and do pass.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, I feel it's very, very important at this juncture, with the passing of this supplementary bill, to clearly point out that the amount of opportunity here in the Yukon is decreasing at an alarming rate. We had hopes and aspirations that the Liberals would have created some winter works projects to put Yukoners to work with this new supplementary budget. But, Mr. Speaker, what we see is a surplus of some $64 million-odd. That's firm, hard cash. And we see a supplementary expenditure that goes to the end of May, that may or may not lapse funds, and that may or may not come on target to the supplementary estimates.

But the bottom line is that Yukoners will not be going to work this winter and it's going to be a very grim winter without some intervention by this Liberal government to involve itself in the economy and create and stimulate the economy, send a clear message to the mining community, send a clear message to the oil and gas industry, put Yukoners back to work. That's what was expected from this Liberal government. They haven't delivered in helping Yukoners to find work this winter. They have to move elsewhere, Mr. Speaker. It's a sad, sad day for Yukon.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government was left with a lot of money in the bank account - $64 million in the bank account at the beginning of their term - and they had ample opportunity to speak with Yukoners and address the situation that's facing Yukon, after knowing, from the Auditor General, what was left for them and the amount of money that they could use to address this type of situation.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals chose to bring in a very large supplementary budget, and in our view it did not reflect the needs of Yukoners, it did not provide winter works, right now, for Yukoners who so desperately need it because the economy is not picking up at all. It's on a continual down turn, Mr. Speaker.

The Liberals did not take the constructive suggestions that were made from this side of the House about addressing the winter works program now and looking at ways to provide help to seniors in regard to rising fuel prices in the supplementary budget that we presented to the members opposite. I was quite disappointed that they did not take up that opportunity to bring forth a supplementary budget that really affects Yukoners right now, today, and helps out Yukoners.

Mr. Speaker, I don't feel that the $37 million - which is a huge amount of money, almost equivalent to the total capital that is put forward in a main budget - addresses the issue of Yukoners. And we tried to help but the Liberals refused it. We cannot support this. And it's sad to know that such a large amount of money is not going to the purposes and needs of Yukoners. We will not be supporting this bill.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Division on this bill will speak volumes. It will speak volumes to Yukon people about how the side opposite does not support the health care funding, the education funding and the very real fiscal management that we presented in the supplementary budget.

The supplementary budget reflects an accumulated surplus, as of March, of $64 million. It also reflects a deficit budget in excess of $33 million - more than $1,000 per individual in the territory. As I stated in the original budget figures when they were first tabled early in this year, that level of spending is unsustainable.

We are working very hard to ensure that Yukon taxpayers' money is managed wisely and that it meets their needs.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. Kent:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Disagree.

Mr. Fentie:      Disagree.

Mr. Keenan:      Disagree.

Mr. McRobb:      Disagree.

Ms. Netro:      Disagree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Disagree.

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

Speaker:      The ayes have it.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 3 agreed to

Speaker:      I declare the motion carried and that Bill No. 3 has passed this House.

Unanimous consent re Third Reading of Bill No. 31

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Speaker, I would request unanimous consent of the House to allow a motion for the third reading of Bill No. 31, which was reported out of Committee with amendment today, to be moved at this time.

Speaker:      Is there unanimous consent?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      Unanimous consent has been granted.

Bill No. 31: Third Reading

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 31, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 31, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 31, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Mr. McRobb:      Before we vote on this, I'd like to put on the record our appreciation to the minister for bringing forward this amendment after about three or four days of long, arduous debate on this Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's worthy of note at this time that maybe we can learn something from that exercise by being a little more cooperative and respectful of each other in debate on such bills in the future, be a little more open-minded to constructive suggestions and bring in amendments on the spot as appropriate. And a little less stonewalling might be appropriate.

But with that, Mr. Speaker, we are in support of this bill after the amendments have been made, and we'll be supporting it.

Speaker:      Does any other member wish to be heard?

Are you prepared for the question? Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Some Hon. Members:      Disagreed.

Speaker:      I think the ayes have it.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 31 agreed to

Speaker:      I declare that Bill No. 31 has passed this House.

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

Assent to bills

Commissioner:      Please be seated.

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

Clerk:  An Act to Amend the Elections Act, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, Electronic Commerce Act, Electronic Evidence Act, Municipal Loans Act, Arts Act, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act (2000), Department of Justice Act, An Act to Amend the Interpretation Act, Enforcement of Canadian Judgements and Decrees Act, Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, Fourth Appropriation Act, 1999-2000, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2, Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act.

Commissioner: I hereby assent to the bills as enumerated by the Clerk, and, before rising, I would like to express my compliments this season to all the members and their staff and the Legislative Assembly staff and those loyal soldiers behind the wall back there in the Hansard office.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Speaker:      I will now call the House to order.

Special adjournment motion

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Speaker, I move

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

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

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

Speaker:      It has been moved by the government House leader

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

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

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker:      At this time I feel that I have a duty to perform, and I am sure that I speak for all members of this House. On behalf of all members, I would like to sincerely thank Mr. Doug Arnott, our Acting Deputy Clerk, for the able assistance that he has delivered in this House.

Please join me in wishing Mr. Arnott a safe journey home, and happiness and prosperity in this festive season and the years to come. Thanks very much, Doug.

Applause

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

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker:      This House now stands adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

The following Sessional Paper was tabled December 14, 2000:

00-02-56

Yukon Housing Corporation 1999/00 Annual Report

(Jim)

The following Legislative Return was tabled December 14, 2000:

00-02-26

Health and Social Services: response to questions asked on November 30, 2000 by the Member for Kluane, during debate on the 2000-01 Supplementary Estimates

(Roberts)

Oral, Hansard, p. 709-717