back

Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, January 7, 1988 - 1:30 p.m.

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.

Introduction of Visitors? Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have two documents for tabling.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I have for tabling the Annual Report from Health and Human Resources, and MLAs have each received a copy.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have for tabling a report on the Institution of the Ombudsperson.

Speaker: Are there any further documents for tabling?

Are there any Reports of Committees?

Are there any Petitions?

Introduction of Bills?

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

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Consultation Panel on Child Care

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House that the Consultation Panel on the Future Direction of Child Care in the Yukon has been appointed. Ms. Joyce M. Hayden has been appointed chairperson and Ms. Mary Kane and Mr. Mike Nelson have been appointed members.

Ms. Hayden, a long resident of the Yukon, is currently a board member of the Yukon’s Status of Women Council. She brings to the appointment a wealth of experience and expertise in the field of social services. In her professional career, Ms. Hayden has been involved in a broad spectrum of social planning agencies and committees dealing with child care, spousal abuse, social assistance, rehabilitation services and juvenile justice, to name but a few. She was one of the original senior employees of the Whitehorse YWCA. Her skills in group facilitation and communication will be invaluable in her role as chairperson.

Ms. Mary Kane has been a resident of the Yukon since 1978 and has worked as a family and juvenile court worker for approximately four years. Her experiences in this area sparked her interest in the care of children. As a mother, Ms. Kane sees child care as a major social issue to be addressed in the Yukon as it affects both the economic and social aspects of the family. Ms. Kane has been an active member of the Whitehorse Diversion Committee and has served on the board of directors of the Yukon Public Legal Education Association. She was also involved in the implementation of the Champagne-Aishihik Child Welfare Pilot Project which transferred the responsibility for child welfare from the Government of Yukon to the Champagne-Aishihik Band.

Mike Nelson is a long-time resident of the Yukon and has been involved in various aspects of Yukon society. His post secondary education was in the field of fine arts and he used this expertise in working with a variety of arts, cultural and recreational organizations over the years. In 1980 and 1986, Mike was a prime organizer for the Arctic Winter Games. He has also been a successful businessman and operated both Northern Outdoors and Books on Main. Mike established the first child care facility at the Lutheran Church in Whitehorse 14 years ago. This venture developed his continuing interest in child care and today he feels some positive decisions regarding the future of the program are required.

The green paper will be released to the public next month. The panel will consult with individuals and interested groups in their own communities once the public has had an opportunity to study and review the green paper. The public’s input will be sought on a series of issues raised in the green paper. The views and opinions obtained through this consultation process will be recorded and presented in summary to the government. This information will assist the government in its determination of a broad Yukon child care policy to guide the development of a system of child care services and support for parents and their children in years to come.

The panel will announce a schedule of meeting dates and locations in early February. At the same time, procedures for the public consultation will also be outlined.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Value added policy

Mr. Phelps: I have some questions for the Minister of Government Services about the value added policy for contract tendering, which has been unveiled before our very eyes in the past little while.

The Yukon Contractors Association has come out against this policy and gave their reasons in a letter to the Minister dated January 4, 1988. I am wondering whether or not the Minister has met with the Contractors Association to discuss this letter and their concerns?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No. I was surprised by the letter, particularly by the timing of the letter. That consultation had occurred regularly and repeatedly over the last months, and I am sure that we will discuss the issue in the future. We have regular monthly meetings that I attend. I have not specifically asked for a special meeting as a result of that letter.

Mr. Phelps: I am rather surprised by that, because the letter, in my opinion, contains a number of well-reasoned arguments that set forth their concerns about this new policy. They are concerned about many things and least of all the prospect of government intrusion into the business of entrepreneurs. Will the Minister not meet with the Yukon Contractors Association forthwith to discuss these important concerns?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I will not meet with them forthwith, but we certainly will meet and discuss these concerns. We meet monthly - regularly. I do attend these meetings, and we talk about all of the problems and disagreements that occur from time to time. There certainly will be discussions. There were in the past, and those discussions will continue, I am absolutely sure.

Mr. Phelps: This is an unusually important issue. It is a new policy. The main industry connected with it is concerned about it. When will the Minister meet with the Contractors Association?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I do not know the precise date of the next meeting, so I cannot say with precision. I believe it will be in the month of January.

Question re: Value added policy

Mr. Phelps: When it comes to contract tendering, fairness and the perception of fairness are really all important. It is like justice. The appearance and perception of fairness in dealing with bids is extremely important. This new policy seems not only impractical but, in the words of the Yukon Contractors Association, they say the proposed policy would result in the principle of lowest tender being bypassed, and the perception of a fair tendering process would be subject to considerable interpretation.

Now that the Minister has read the letter, does he share the concerns set out on that score?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That is a fairly simple question, but it involves a complex answer. I was very surprised at the letter, as I said earlier. The letter contains a very radical departure from the position of the Contractors Association taken earlier. If you read the words literally, which I believe was intended, it speaks against any preference for local contractors, not believe was intended.

The contractors are speaking from a point of view. Their point of view is obviously to maximize their profits. We have no argument with that, per se, but there is a larger public interest to do several other things - one of them being to get the most cost effective contracts for the benefit of the tax payers, and another to encourage new construction firms and manufacturers and suppliers to establish a permanent operation in the Yukon.

So, I sympathize with the concerns in the letter, but there are larger concerns that are also important.

Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please conclude his answer?

Mr. Phelps: With the greatest of respect, the Minister did not deal with the question I asked at all. He went on about this being a sudden change, I take it, in the attitude of the contractors of the Yukon towards this new airy fairy policy that the Minister has brought forward. One year ago in February, I am told...

Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary.

Mr. Phelps: In February of 1987, several concerns were expressed. Would the Minister please answer the question that was: does he have concerns about the one point in the letter that I asked him about in the last question, that the perception of a fair tendering process would be subject to considerable interpretation?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No. That perception is being promoted, especially by the Member for Porter Creek East, but in fact this policy is a clear published government policy which establishes clear rules. The allegation about perceptions - and the word “corruption” was used yesterday, most irresponsibly - are irresponsible.

Mr. Phelps: I want to know the Minister’s reaction with regard to this reasonable argument. It said the proposed policy would greatly increase the cost of tendering projects, which in turn would be passed onto the taxpayer. Does the Minister have any concerns about the cost that is going to be passed on to the taxpayer of the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes, I do have concerns about that, but they are greatly exaggerated in that letter. The expense of contract administration should always be kept to an efficient minimum, and I am concerned about that issue.

Question re: Value added policy

Mr. Phelps: I have here a copy of a letter that was sent to the same Minister from the Yukon Contractors Association last year and it starts out, “Dear Sir: At a general meeting held February 23, 1987, our members unanimously voted to reject the value added policy as proposed by you at our last meeting. This position was taken based on...”, and they reiterate a number of points that are similar to the ones in this letter. Was the Minister unaware of this letter when he responded earlier and said there was a radical change in the attitude of the Association?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No, I was not unaware of that earlier letter. I believe it is a letter to me, in fact. We discussed that letter at the meetings of the Contractors Association and subsequently the proposal was changed and discussions occurred about the specifics of the proposals.

Question re: White Pass Railway

Mr. McLachlan: I have a question with respect to the purchase and negotiations surrounding the purchase of the White Pass and Yukon railway. Some weeks ago my party and I made a press release wherein we proposed that the government look at the purchase of real assets - the waterfront land in Carcross and Whitehorse. I was please to see some weeks later that the government had considered this and made this as part of an offer to the Alaska-Yukon rail company.

Could the Government Leader tell me if there has been any contact with this government by the second group, Mr. Primi and his company, Fantasy Railroads of New York.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: As is customary in the House, let me just briefly respond to the preamble before I respond to the question. I was naturally pleased that the Member opposite, in his press release, took a position similar to the one that we had already taken in our discussions with the company. I was very please to also hear his supportive remarks in that respect.

In connection with Mr. Primi’s group, I know nothing more about his continuing interest in the project other than what was stated in the Whitehorse Star. When he first made his proposal, I met with him personally and arranged for him to have meetings with officials of our government. That was to make him aware of existing or established programs that were available to entrepreneurs and investors interested in tourism developments. At that point the Yukon Development Corporation, for example, was not interested in the question of the railroad and did not become so until Mr. Hougen’s group began to organize a representative group of northerners to take over the railroad.

The answer to the question is that I have not met with him recently. If Mr. Primi is pursuing his project we would meet with him, but we also have every hope or every expectation that the local group headed by Mr. Hougen is not out of the picture yet, and they will come up with another proposal so the negotiations with White Pass will continue in some form.

Mr. McLachlan: Is the same offer of involvement of this government, vis a vis the land between Whitehorse and Carcross, still available to the second group of people, should they inquire?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: First, the Member should understand that it was not a formal offer. We have indicated that on that kind of basis, we were willing to participate. The kind of arrangements were not, as I indicated to the Leader of the Official Opposition before Christmas, by themselves sufficient enough to close the gap between White Pass’ asking price and what Mr. Hougen’s group had established was a commercial price for the railroad operation.

Yes. We are still willing to make that offer the basis of the discussion, but by itself, I know that it will not be sufficient to see the deal closed.

Mr. McLachlan: One of the potential buyers of the assets has, as its main objective, the selling of the rails, the timbers, and equipment for its scrap value. That has to be the least palatable to anybody in the Yukon for an offer of purchase. I am wondering if the Government Leader has made any representation to Winnipeg, to the Federal Industries Office, to hold the doors open, consider all possible options, or stress that that certainly is not the one that we would consider as Yukoners very attractive.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Let me make it clear: that is obviously the least attractive offer and I believe White Pass has indicated the same when they made a public statement recently that one of their considerations was the possibility of their company running the railroad itself. I believe the view has been expressed in this House before, that the White Pass is probably a more attractive proposition as a tourist attraction than it is as a mode of transportation, and I think I would share that view. I think the view has been expressed in the House most recently by the Leader of the Opposition that we would prefer an arrangement about the train to Whitehorse, or at least Carcross, than one that simply just took it to the Summit. That is a view which I am sure is also shared by both sides of this House.

That basic perspective is one that we would bring to any discussions on this question. But I must also say that there is, I think, at least one element of Mr. Primi’s proposal - that of developing a permanent kind of resort on the Canadian side of the border. There are people in this area who see this as a very intelligent and very promising proposal.

Question re: Old Yukon College

Mr. Phillips: I would like to ask a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, because I am very concerned about the move of various departments to the old Yukon College and its effect on traffic congestion in and out of Riverdale and to the hospital. The City of Whitehorse, in its five year capital plan, is looking at widening the bridge in the 1990 construction year. This means an extra lane on the bridge would not be complete until almost a year and a half after the government moves its 300 employees into the old Yukon College.

What is the government going to do to assist the City of Whitehorse to alleviate this potential problem?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As I have indicated publicly, the Department of Community and Transportation Services, in coordination with other relevant departments, will be meeting and striking a joint committee with the City of Whitehorse to review the traffic flows in and around the old college site. The area to be reviewed includes the congestion points at the turn-off to the existing Yukon College site, as well as the turn-off from the road crossing the bridge to the South Access road. Both of those two congestion areas will be reviewed jointly by the city and traffic engineers to determine what remedial action would be desirable.

Mr. Phillips: I understand there has to be some kind of study ongoing, but I do not think you will get an argument from anyone in Riverdale that there already is a problem there. Anyone trying to get in and out of Riverdale - emergency vehicles or fire vehicles - at certain rush hour times now, there is a problem. By moving 300 or more employees over to Yukon College, the problem will be compounded. I am asking the Government Minister if he will move now and sit down with city officials to discuss the cost sharing of the additional lane on the bridge into Riverdale?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The government has already indicated that it will be sitting down with the City to review the transportation network in that area. The City has agreed that it should be done.

With respect to the additional lane, it is already being incorporated by the City of Whitehorse as part of their plan. It is a traditional municipal expenditure. The City has recognized that and that is why they have it in their Capital Budget. The move would essentially remove the existing sidewalks that are on the body of the bridge and they would be hung to the side of the bridge. The strength of the bridge would support the additional lane. That is the plan the City has and I am careful, at this point, not to predict what the traffic engineers are going to recommend for future developments or future cost sharing recommendations.

Mr. Phillips: Is the Minister telling the people of the Yukon - and this is the government that is moving 300 employees into Yukon College and next year, no doubt the traffic problem coming in and out of Riverdale will be absolutely intolerable - that he is not prepared to cost share with the City, and not prepared to sit down now? Will he wait until 1990 when the City is ready to move? Would he not take the initiative and move now, so that when the employees are over there we will not have some type of emergency problem and not be able to get emergency vehicles in and out of Riverdale?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member has not been listening. I have already indicated that the government has already taken the initiative to strike a committee and talk about traffic flows in the area.

In response to a question that was put before the House by the Member for Riverdale South, I indicated that preliminary work had already been done last year with respect to the point of traffic at the South Access Road as it meets the road crossing the bridge. I have already indicated that those were initiatives taken by the government. In the case of the South Access, largely because that is a road owned by the government. The reason why we are getting involved in a transportation study at all in this area is because of government activity in the area, and we feel it is our obligation to get involved.

With respect to cost sharing arrangements, those are to be negotiated at a later date, depending on the details of the arrangement. It is essentially the same thing that we agreed to do - up front - at the new Yukon College site and the manner and method by which we are addressing the concern is going to be similar.

Question re: Old Yukon College

Mr. Phillips: I am still unclear. Is the Minister telling us today that the Government of Yukon is accepting some of the responsibility for the traffic problems that will be created over there, and yes, they will be cost sharing the new lane on the bridge or the new access that has to be created in and out of Riverdale - they will be cost sharing that with the City of Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: This is a matter open for negotiations. The point of the matter is that we have to determine what incremental increase, or effect, the government offices will have on traffic flows in the area. If we can determine that government has increased the traffic flows, and there is remedial action required in order to improve the transportation infrastructure, then we will negotiate a cost sharing arrangement. That is the point of the matter.

Mr. Phillips: I am astounded. Is the Minister telling this House that 300 employees who are going to work at the old college are not going to affect the traffic flow in and out of Riverdale, and that his government has no responsibility whatsoever to assist the City of Whitehorse in providing reasonable and safe access to and from the hospital and Riverdale?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am talking about the incremental increase to the traffic flow, as a result of the use of the building by government employees, beyond what is currently existing at the college - which would be about 500 students going to the college currently, including teachers. We have to determine what effect this will have on traffic flows. Once we allow the traffic engineers to objectively determine what the traffic flows will be, we will then discuss what the cost sharing arrangements are.

It was because the government was interested and concerned about the possible effect that we long ago initiated the idea of the joint planning committee with the City of Whitehorse.

Question re: Garage stove regulations

Mr. Brewster: I am very pleased to see the press release that came out. The only comment I would make on that is that perhaps, if we had listened to the motion in the first place, we would have saved a lot of time yesterday.

This looks like a blue ribbon committee. Who will be representing the Yukon rural people on this committee?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: We will make a good effort to try to include people from rural Yukon on the committee. We want to have the committee report to the government in short order. We are looking at a cross-section, and certainly  the committee will attempt, in every way possible, to seek the views of rural people.

Mr. Brewster: I did not ask whether they would seek the views of the rural people. Ninety people from Dawson signed the petition, 40 from Mayo signed the petition, and there are other petitions coming from other places in rural Yukon. I think the Minister will have to agree that rural Yukon deserves a representative on that committee.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is the government’s intention to encourage the people from rural Yukon to be involved in this process. When the committee is struck, I will let the Member know who is representing people from rural Yukon. Without any shadow of a doubt, the views of the rural Yukon people will be expressed to this committee, one way or another.

Mr. Brewster: It states very plainly in the news release who is included on the committee. There is no rural Yukon representative, so I presume the answer is no. Will the new regulations be put in abeyance until this committee has brought in their report and recommendations?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: If the Member would like to read the press release closely, it says the people who will be on the committee will include the people mentioned in the press release - include those people. It does not necessarily mean that there will not be other people on the committee. The views of rural people were a primary reason for the government’s intention to make a move with respect to this matter in the first place, months ago.

The reason why there is every desire to move as quickly as possible is that, recognizing that this regulation is currently in effect and is for new construction, we wanted to be sure that the change is made as expeditiously as possible.

Question re: Lottery licensing act

Mrs. Firth: So far now we have had three different figures presented as to what the administrative costs are for this service under the lottery licencing act. In April, 1987, the Minister of Justice said that the costs were estimated at $18,000. On Tuesday, on the radio, the official from the Minister’s department said that the cost was $23,000. Yesterday, the Minister said in the Whitehorse Star that the cost would be $12,500. Can the Minister tell us what the real costs are for the administration of this service?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: It depends on what is measured: the costs of the board, or the costs of the civil servants who support the activities of the board or other costs. For example, last year, there was a large cost for the bingos in Dawson City because of an investigation. The anticipated expense, which would include the expenses of the board and the board’s support including the salaries of the civil servants, is a total of approximately $16,000 a year. That is a new figure. The real answer is, after a year of operation, we will know with certainty.

Mrs. Firth: The real answer is that the officials do not know what the costs are. The Minister does not know what the costs are. Nobody knows what the costs are, but the people purchasing these licences are paying the costs, whatever they are. That is what the real issue is.

The Minister referred, in the article in the Whitehorse Star yesterday, to some hidden costs. Could the Minister tell us what those hidden costs are?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: They are the salaries of civil servants and the like. The original projection, that I gave in the House I believe,  was $12,500 for the costs of the administration of the Act. There were hidden costs for the board, which were $4,000 that I had also identified some time ago. The best projection that the civil service gives me of the total costs, including the hidden costs, is about $16,000 a year.

Mrs. Firth: All along, the Minister has maintained that these costs are minimal. He said it on April 1, 1987, he said it in December. In April, he said the costs were going to be so minimal there may not even be any fee increase. Can the Minister tell us - if these costs are so minimal - what the reason is for this extremely high tax he has put on volunteers, if he is still maintaining that costs are minimal?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: There is no tax at all. The facts of the matter are not as suggested by Members opposite and not as suggested by some reporters in the media - especially the electronic media. The vast majority of these bingos, casinos and raffles are very small raffles. There are many of them in a year. The percentage on the prize would affect, if it were in place last year, six lotteries. So the only major increase in fees would occur on six lotteries. I would expect that the value of the prizes would be readjusted in future if this scheme is to stay in place. However, it is under review. I may say that the approach identified in...

Speaker: Order, please. Could the Minister please conclude his answer?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I should say that the review is under way, and we are looking at a greater precision, specifically looking at the impact on those five or six large lotteries.

Question re: Lottery licensing act

Mrs. Firth: Speaking of the review process the Minister has just raised, could he tell us what that process is. How is it going to work and who is sitting on this review panel?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The Deputy Minister and the Director and the Administrator and myself are going to sit down next week and determine that, with a view to a Cabinet submission which should occur very, very quickly - I would hope before April 1.

Mrs. Firth: Do I understand it from the Minister, then, that it is going to be a collection of officials sitting down? Are they not going to be consulting with these groups who are raising concerns that there is going to be no consultative process with the organizations?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No, that is not a proper interpretation of what I said. I was asked how the procedure would occur. The procedure that will occur is not yet determined and we will determine exactly what we will do at a meeting next week.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister indicated that this review committee was going to sit down with the intention of taking a document to Cabinet. That does not include consultation. I interpret that as four people sitting down to formulate a Cabinet document and take it to Cabinet, and there would be no consultation. I would like a commitment from the Minister that there will be consultation and I would like to know when the review is going to be complete.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have spoken about a review. I made a commitment about the review. Exactly how it should occur I do not know yet, and I am not making a specific commitment about that. About the dates, I am not making a specific commitment, but the target date is no later than April 1. I hope it would be substantially in advance of April 1.

Question re: Garage stove regulations

Mr. Lang: I am a little confused here. In an answer from the Minister of Community and Transportation Services earlier to the question of the wood stove regulations and changes thereto - just to refresh the Minister’s memory, he indicated to the House approximately ten minutes ago that changes had been contemplated for the last couple of months with respect to these regulations that have been imposed on the people of the territory. I want to refer to a CBC news report of December 15, 1987. It states the following, “The Yukon government has already released its response to Phelps’ request. It will not change the regulations. Terry Sewell is a representative for the Department of Community Services. He says the Yukon is more lenient than other jurisdictions on this issue.”

I ask the Minister why he would say that there were changes contemplated over the last couple of months when this policy statement was made in response to the concerns raised by the Leader of the Official Opposition?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I cannot vouch for the accuracy of news reports.  I can say, though, that concerns have been expressed by a number of people over the course of the last few months - expressed directly to me, expressed to the government and to government Members, expressed to the Members of the Opposition, and expressed through Municipal Council. The government, given those concerns, was considering options thoroughly over the course of the last couple of months.

Some of the options were pursued at great length, and I elucidated on what those options were in the Legislature yesterday. In fact I gave a precis of all the options that we had considered to that point and tried to explain to Members opposite yesterday how the motion they presented yesterday would not meet their own aspirations with respect to this particular matter. I tried to be helpful in that regard.

The government indicated yesterday that it was prepared to review the wood stove regulations with respect to private residential garages. I indicated to the Leader of the Official Opposition - not on the floor, not on the record, but I certainly indicated to him - that we were prepared to review the regulations with respect to commercial garages as well. That is what the press release indicates today. We were concerned that the information that might be disseminated might not accurately reflect the tenor of the debate.

Answer re: Fuel pricing inquiry

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I wonder if I may respond orally to a question that has been unanswered from before Christmas. On December 17, I announced the formation of a board of inquiry into fuel pricing in the Yukon. I wish to announce today that Territorial Court Judge Heino Lilles has accepted our offer of appointment today to be a one person board of inquiry into this matter. Members may know that Judge Lilles was appointed to the court in July, 1987. Previously, he was on the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University where he taught, among other things, corporate law, tax law and commercial law. Judge Lilles also holds Masters Degrees in polymer chemistry from Queen’s University, as well as a Masters Degree in law from the London School of Economics.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Porter: I move that the Assembly be empowered to sit from 7:30 p.m. until such time as it is agreed to adjourn for the purpose of considering the bills before Committee of the Whole and to permit the House to consider motions for the third reading of bills.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: There is unanimous consent.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Porter: 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 hon. 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

Chairman: Committee of the Whole will now come to order. We will recess for 15 minutes.

Recess

Chairman: The Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

Bill No. 5 - First Appropriation Act, 1988-89 - continued

Department of Health and Human Resources - continued

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The Capital Budget for Health and Social Services programming has been designed to continue the work begun in 1987-88. We are proceeding with construction of the secure facility for young offenders in Whitehorse. This new facility is scheduled for completion in the fall of 1988.

I would like to inform Members that the government has successfully negotiated a capital contribution agreement with the federal government. This new agreement will provide $2.2 million towards the capital cost of this facility. In addition to funds already made available for implementation of the federal Young Offenders Act, the federal government will also cover approximately 50 percent of the ongoing operating costs of the facility through a cost share agreement with Juvenile Justice Services signed last year.

As part of the government’s current strategy to promote accessible, affordable quality care for services throughout the Yukon, the Day Care Capital Development Program will be continued for a second year. This program will also be available to licensed family day homes.

Members have been advised of delays in federal plans to replace the Whitehorse General Hospital with a new facility. We have been working together with National Health and Welfare on this project in planning for an extended care facility as well, and in view of these uncertainties I am only requesting project vote authority of one dollar for the extended care facility at this time. Once federal intentions are clarified and my Cabinet colleagues and I have reviewed our options, I hope to be in a position to bring a supplementary forward to the House at an appropriate time in 1988-89.

In accordance with agreements with National Health and Welfare, provisions have been made for 70 percent cost sharing of eligible facility and equipment projects. I am pleased to advise Members who have not visited Pelly Crossing recently that construction of the Pelly Crossing Health Centre will be completed very soon.

These are the highlights. I will be pleased to address any questions Members have on the Capital Budget.

Mrs. Firth: I have a few questions regarding the overall performance of the Department of Health and Human Resources. There is some supplementary information that the Minister included in the last Budget but is not in this one. I am referring to information such as a breakdown of program activity of the specific areas such as Family and Children’s Services, day care assistance, renovations to seniors facilities, Placement and Support Services, and Alcohol and Drug Services. Health Services had a breakdown as well as Social Services and Juvenile Justice. Last year there was a further breakdown of those areas that is not in this year’s budget.

Can the Minister tell us why it was decided to leave that information out this time?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The information that I gave the Member previously was what we had that time. That is the same information that the Member is asking for now. I am not sure that we can provide that because I do not think that she is asking for the same thing. Is the Member looking for information on Macaulay Lodge.

Mrs. Firth: It was not the package of supplementary information.  Why, in the information that is included in this book, did the department not include the same supplementary breakdown that they did last year?

Hon. Mr. Porter: The question relates to the budgetary format. This question was earlier addressed when the Government Leader opened the debate on the budget. It was asked about by Members opposite, and explained by the Government Leader. I do not have a copy of the previous budget information, but we are contending that the information included in this budget is of a greater resource. It was a decision that is government wide and does not affect just one specific department only. It was made as the government as a whole to change the budget format. That is why the information that the Member seeks is not contained within the budget presented this year.

Mrs. Firth: I appreciate the Government House leader standing up to answer the question but it had been directed to the Minister of Health. I suppose I am to assume from that response that the Ministers really did not say what was going to be included in their budgets. It departs from the Operation and Maintenance format. It is consistent with the Operation and Maintenance format, the detail in last years budget, but it is not in this year’s budget and I thought that was what the intention was, that the detail would be consistent with the Operation and Maintenance Budget. I simply raise it again to prove a point that although the Government Leader has commented that there were more lines in this one than the other one, there really is not. I thought the information presented last year in the Capital Budget at least gave us a snippet more detail and I know the media and other people who have had copies of the Capital Budget feel the same way, and have expressed the same concern to me.

It is really very difficult for someone who is not familiar with budget details and presentations to understand what this means and as far as they are concerned it is just a bunch of figures and titles. If we can give any more information without making it a cumbersome document, it would be our recommendation that the government pursue that in the next Capital Budget.

Hon. Mr. Porter: As the Member is aware, the Management Board makes the decision for the entire presentation of the budget. There has been a change and we undertake to incorporate her recommendations and suggestions and look at the suggestions she has made when we revisit the structure of the budget in the future.

Mrs. Firth: I would like to ask the Minister a question about the Annual Report. In the Annual Report, when we are reading about health and hospital insurance services, the comments on page 11 regarding the insured population indicates that the increase is 10.3 percent from March 1986 to 1987 and goes from 25,697 to 28,332; that is insured population. That is quite an increase. That increase has developed over the time since the government abolished medicare premiums.

I would like to ask the Minister what process is in place to see that the Yukon taxpayer is not paying insurance services for non-resident Yukoners.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: As we have in the past, there have been certain criteria that we follow with respect to the length of residency of an individual in the Yukon and where they have come from. If they have lived in the Yukon and worked, I believe they are eligible after three months. We try to make sure that those individuals who do come to the Yukon can be covered for a short while from their previous jurisdiction and will be able to be included in a health care plan here in the Yukon after that.

I am not sure whether or not we have certain individuals who may be taking advantage of it or not. I cannot tell the Member that, but we pretty well follow the same criteria as we have in the past.

Mrs. Firth: It has been raised as a concern in the media by the Medical Association, and officials from the Minister’s department have spoken about this particular issue and have revealed that there really is not a system for tracking individuals who may have left.

I will give you an example. I understand that some business people are even offering this as an incentive to come here. It is part of a package that you do not have to pay Medicare premiums. So, you get people coming up for seasonal work, they stay here for three or four months, they leave the Yukon, they have a local address that their mail goes to, and we continue to pay for their services.

In view of the remarkable increase, what is the department doing to see whether we do have people who are causing infractions, or who are not Yukon residents, and how they are monitoring this?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: We have had that concern related to us previously by a number of individuals, including the Member for Dawson, because of the large influx of people coming in to work for mines. In most cases, we assume people are honest and that they will come from another place and are still under some kind of coverage for a period of three months, or whatever that jurisdiction allows them. After that period of time, they would register with our health department.

There is a procedure that is being followed with respect to that. The only thing I can offer the Member at this time is to come back with that information. I would hopefully be able to bring it back to you before the end of this day.

Mrs. Firth: I think it is very dangerous for the Minister to stand up and say that they are making assumptions that people are honest. We all like to feel that people are honest and their intentions are good, but we are talking about a huge budget. We are talking about a budget that was over spent and chastised and criticized by the auditor general because they were over spent by in excess of $1 million.

In the annual report you see an increase of 10.3 percent of the registered insured population. The Minister had better get some system in place to monitor this. Do I gather from her comments that it is not being monitored, that there is no system in place other than their assumptions that people are honest?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I did not say exactly that. I said in most cases we would assume that if a person moved to the Yukon, he was an honest person and would give us the right information about previous coverage somewhere else. We do have a system, as in anything else you do, where you have to follow a certain way of doing things. In the case of checking up on individuals who may be covered when they should not be. I would hope that is not happening, but if it is, as I mentioned before, there is a procedure in our department. I had said previously that I would be able to bring that information back to the Member and would be able to be more specific in answering her.

Mrs. Firth: I will be looking forward to getting that information because I believe there is no monitoring system in place. My recommendation to the Minister would be to immediately have her officials examine establishing a system to monitor this very accurately.

I would like to ask the Minister if this also applies to the Chronic Disease List and the Disability Program? Have there been any observations made in that area, and what is in place to see that abuses are not taking place there?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The person who does need those services and is eligible has to be registered. They are normally registered, as the Member knows, on the advice of a doctor. I am not sure whether or not she is asking me about anything other than that, whether it is being abused in some way, but it still works the same as it did when it first started. The person has to be recommended for that list by the doctor.

Mrs. Firth: I am speaking in the same context as I am about the health care registrations. What system is in place to see that these individuals are still here and they are not living somewhere else. This is another program within the Minister’s department that has been expanded considerably and is going to contribute to costs that the Auditor General is going to be looking at. I again make representation that if there is not a system in place - and I question whether there is - that we better get one in place because this department is spending more and more money every day. I want to make sure they are doing what is in the best interest of the Yukon taxpayer, as well as for the people who are the recipients of these programs.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: We, in the department, are always doing what is in the best interests of the individuals that we serve. In a lot of cases, some of our expenditures are a little bit more because we deal with sick people and we deal with all sorts of other things that other departments do not deal with. The policy that we have in place in dealing with possible abusers would be done the same way because it comes under Health. It would be done the same way as the recipients of Health would be looked at.

Mrs. Firth: I would like to ask the Minister about her Day Care Capital Assistance Program. Can the Minister tell me what the criteria is for the program?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The start-up grant will contribute to building, construction, acquisition or renovations to meet standards, major play equipment and furnishing of children’s toilets and high chairs, and grounds development for a centre or family day home which can be licensed. The capital enhancement grant will contribute to facility renovations and upgrading major play equipment and furnishings for children, grounds improvements for already licensed day care centres and equipment, and assistance for licensed family day homes. Those individuals who are eligible for that capital assistance are non-profit organizations, bands or municipalities, and private enterprises. Applicants, on behalf of existing day care centres or family day homes, must operate licensed facilities, and applicants for start-up grants must be intending to establish licensed services.

Mrs. Firth: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. I had asked for the criteria, but the Minister talked about being licensed. I am more interested in the terms and conditions. In the last budget debate, I asked the Minister what the terms and conditions were and the criteria, and she was unable to give that to me at that time because she said they were putting them together. I would like to know what the terms and conditions are when it comes to applying for this capital assistance.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I would be pleased to let her have a copy of that right now. Let me get back in a couple of minutes.

Mrs. Firth: I gather the official has run off to get the terms and conditions.

Can the Minister tell me what happens if a day care has become eligible and received a substantial amount of money - is there any condition that they have to operate for so long after they have received the grant? Say a day care were to close down, would they have to pay the money back? Is that a term or condition?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: There are conditions attached to each agreement that is signed by the government and those day care centres or family day homes. The terms and conditions will be included in the information that will be brought back.

Mrs. Firth: Is the Minister telling me she does not know whether that is a condition of the grant? Surely she should be able to tell me that if a day care gets $50,000, operates for six weeks after they got the money and then all of a sudden decides to shut down - do they have to give that money back, or part of it? Can she not answer that?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I see I am going to be asked all kinds of specific things, and I will have to be very specific with my answers.

There are terms and conditions attached to each agreement. In some cases, some of the money has to be returned. In other cases, the equipment has to be returned or given to others. Each and every agreement is a little different, because sometimes there is a small amount of work done, and at other times, there is a large amount of work done. It is very seldom that an operator will work for five days after receiving $50,000 to do work on a family day home.

There are certain conditions, and they are included in this document here, which is quite lengthy.

Mrs. Firth: Unless I missed it, I did not see it in the Annual Report. From what the Minister has just told me, I gather that each agreement is drawn up on an individual basis.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The Annual Report that the Member is using is a 1986-87 report. These Day Care Capital Development Program guidelines explain day care centres: what they are, who they are, how they get money and what they do if they decide to close. I will have that information sent to the Member.

Mrs. Firth: I have one if the Minister could just tell me on what page it is on. All I see is day care on page nine. It just talks about how it has continued to promote quality day care, how the department hosted the Annual Federal-Provincial Meeting. I do not see any criteria or terms and conditions of agreements in it. Perhaps I can get an answer to the question I asked: is each agreement negotiated on an individual basis?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: Yes, she can.

Mrs. Firth: It would have been nice to have received a copy of this. I asked the Minister to send it to me when it was completed, and she gave me a commitment to do so. I have never received this document from the Minister’s department. I will have to review it very closely. It is called Day Care Capital Development Program Guidelines, 1987. My colleagues are shaking their heads and saying that none of them have seen it either.

I would like to make a point that when Ministers stand up in this House and say that they will send documents to Members forthwith, and that they will be forthright and as cooperative as they can -  we have to keep following up and keep writing and asking them for documents. I have had communication with the Minister asking for follow-up after past sessions, but I did not receive the documentation.

Could the Minister answer the question with respect to the programming and the agreements now that her official is back? Should someone decide that their day care is going to close down and they have received an amount of money - for example, in the list of day care development grants that were given out as of November 12, 1987, there was one for $50,000 to a day care centre, and also one to a private day care centre for $40,000 - would they have to return the money?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I have previously indicated that each agreement was different. In some cases, we would ask them to offer that space to some other individual who may be interested in following through on the same kind of a plan. In other cases, if we find that the work has not been completely done, we would ask for a return of some of the money. In one case, as was done already, an application was approved and, at the last minute, the operator decided not to go ahead with it. All that money was either returned or may not have been given to her.

In each case it is different, because there are different kinds of family day homes and day care centres, and different amounts of money are given to each and every one of them. We would look at the best option but, in most cases, if it is a very well established day care centre, then we would encourage those individuals to either lease it or sell it to someone else. Most operators know that that option is open to them.

Mrs. Firth: In the event of private ownership, - for example, within someone’s residence - what would happen under those circumstances?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: Most of the day care centres and family day homes are in residences already. There are not an awful lot that are in other places. Mickey Mouse is and the one down by Third Avenue.

Mrs. Firth: I did not get an answer to the question. What happens under those circumstances? Do they have to return the money, or a portion of the money?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I have mentioned before that, when the day care centre operators decide that they may not want to operate it any more, they have been encouraged by the department to offer that service to somebody else to offer those facilities.

In the case of a person who just does not want to operate a day care centre anymore, and wanted to close the whole thing down, we would require that they  return any funding that was given to them through the grant system to enhance or upgrade their day care centre.

Mrs. Firth: I have quickly gone through the document that the Minister presented today, and I do not see anything in here that tells us what happens if someone leaves the territory, or if the recipient of the grant, for some reason, does not continue to operate as a day care. I guess the way to get an answer to my question would be to ask for some of the agreements so that I can see what kind of agreements the government is drawing up with these people for these sums of money. I do not see that as being confidential information, and if it is I am quite prepared to accept the forms. They can black out the names or whatever they want to do. I want to get some idea of how this program is being monitored. The Minister is asking for another $300,000 for this program for this next year. Perhaps, after she answers the first question, she can tell me how much of that money was actually spent last year.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The Member is asking me for the amount of money that we have spent on this capital project. I am sorry I did not get the full question.

Mrs. Firth: The last part of it.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The last part of it. We still have some money left in our budget for this $300,000 Capital for day care. I do not know what the exact amount is that we have left that we can grant to individuals who want to buy toys or enhance their day care centres.

Mrs. Firth: I was simply asking how much of the $300,000 was spent last year.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: This has only been in existence since April of the last fiscal year. We will not have a total until the end the year, unless she wants to know how much money we spent between April and now. I could get that information.

Mrs. Firth: I am trying to find out how the department justified the need for having to ask for $300,000 again. How did they know that that was not too much. It was an experiment last year, a new program, and they asked for a set amount. How did they know to come back and ask for the same amount? Why did they not ask for $250,000 or $350,000, why $300,000?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: We had a very good idea from all sorts of individuals or groups out there that there was a great need for day care spaces in the Yukon. We had been lobbied by a number of communities; we had been lobbied by a number of day care advocates; we talked to a number of individuals who were telling us that there was a great need for day care for individuals who were going to school. The need was known to us and had been for a number of years. I do not think that the figure of $300,000 was a figure that was taken out of the air. A lot of preparation went into trying to find out how much money it would cost to do a certain project. Based on the amount of children who did require day care spaces, we were able to come up with a figure of $300,000. There was also the fact that you are only allowed so much money. If we felt that we needed more at that point in time we probably would not have been able to get it because there just was not that much money to go around.

The $300,000 will be spent before the end of the fiscal year. People are still asking for this. Despite the fact that one operator did apply and was granted money and then did not open, that money was returned. There were other places that did require that kind of money so they could proceed to operate a day care centre and open up new spaces for the Yukon.

Mrs. Firth: I would like, from the Minister’s Department, an update of the money that has been distributed. The last one I have is November 12, 1987, at which time there was approximately $200,000 spent or designated to be spent. I would like to get a full accounting of the Day Care Capital Development Grant Program. It is unfortunate that I cannot have that information for the budget debate. However, we will move along.

The Minister did not answer my question about getting a copy of the agreements that have been entered into so I can get some idea of what the terms and conditions are in the agreements, because the guideline book does not provide me with that detail.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I have no problem giving her an up to date list of the money we have spent under our Capital Budget for day care. I am not sure whether or not those contracts we have signed with individuals. I would have to take advice on that. I do not know whether I can give them to the Opposition the same as I would if somebody asked me for a contract between a foster group home and somebody else. I am only saying that because I just cannot make that commitment. I will take it under advisement.

Mrs. Firth: I do not see why not. It is taxpayers money that has been spent and it is like any other agreement within other department areas. I am quite prepared to take blank agreements if the Minister wants to take the names of the individuals off. I already have the names of the day cares that have entered into agreements, and the amounts of money they have received. All I am trying to get is a handle on the terms and conditions. They are not explained in this book and the Minister does not seem able to tell me them. I think it is incumbent on the Minister to reassure the taxpayers that this money that is being given in the form of grants is being managed in a responsible way, so that in the event a day care closes down monies do come back or are reallotted and the taxpayer is being protected with these programs.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: If there is no problem, she will get her copies.

Mrs. Firth: Under the approval process, I gather then that each applicant is handled on an individual basis. What is the approval process? Does the review board sit and review the applications? Who is on that review board?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I believe she has that information on the document she was given.

Mrs. Firth: Can the Minister not tell me? Does she not know who is on the review board?

Hon. Mrs. Joe:The names of those individuals are: the Day Care Coordinator, Debbie Mauch; the Placement and Support Supervisor, Maxine Kehoe; and the person representing the Child Care Association, whose name I cannot remember right now.

Mrs. Firth: From the names that the Minister has given me, it seems to be the same individuals who are on the Day Care Services Board. Is that correct?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The only person who is on the Day Care Services Board is Debbie Mauch, and she represents the department.

Mrs. Firth: Has the Minister changed the composition of the Day Care Services Board? There used to be up to at least five representatives on the board, and a couple of them were from the department. Some were from the department and some were from federal Health Services. Is the Minister saying that that has been changed?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: It has not been changed.

Mrs. Firth: To get it clear, the Day Care Services Board and the review panel are two separate boards?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: That is right.

Mrs. Firth: Could I get a commitment from the Minister, if I do not find it in this document? I would like to follow up on that.

What is in place to guarantee that if these contracts are being negotiated on an individual basis that each applicant is being treated fairly? Are there set standards outlined? Is it done on an ad hoc basis? How does the department ensure that each person has equal access and that their application is being reviewed on an equitable basis?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: It is unfortunate that I did not give the Member a copy of the document beforehand because all of those procedures and guidelines are outlined in that book.

Mrs. Firth: They are not, really. It simply gives some criteria, and it is rather vague. It talks about the forms, lists community groups, and so on. I would like to know what structure is in place. How does the review board assess and analysis the applications?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I apologize for the confusion over here. We are also trying to get a copy of the booklet prepared, as we gave the Member the last one handy. We had mentioned that there was information in there that she was asking, and she disputes that and says there was not - so we have to have ours to find out whether or not that is a fact. The book was put together by Health and Human Resources and we assume that everything that we said was in there, was in there.

Mrs. Firth: Sometimes it is a very dangerous assumption to make.

Until the official returns perhaps I can move on to something else and ask the Minister another question. I am just about finished with the questions regarding day care anyway.

The Minister mentions that she is going to be asking for a dollar line item for the extended care facility, and yet during the budget debates on December 9, 1987, I believe the Minister for Government Services mentioned the extended care facility and attached a figure to it. From the debates on page 250 in Hansard on December 9, we were asking about the projected increase in the Operation and Maintenance costs, and the Minister of Government Services said that in the Operation and Maintenance costs - that the biggest single item is a projection for the extended care facility, which is roughly $2 million. Now, does the Minister not have any idea what the capital costs of that extended care facility are going to be? Can she identify it in her budget, and if she does not, I would like to know how the Minister of Government Services can project that the Operation and Maintenance costs are going to be roughly $2 million. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that for us.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I think that we did have a figure that we gave to the Member at some previous time with regard to the kind of money it was going to cost. I must not have been listening when the Minister of Government Services came up with this figure, so I do not know if it would be the same as ours. I do not know.

Mrs. Firth: I am trying to be as patient as I can. I could really be nitpicky and I could be very critical of the Minister. I am trying to be generous and am trying to carry on an informed budget debate. I have the Minister saying to me that she cannot answer my questions, but it is in the information she has given me. I really am being patient and think that the Minister should recognize that.

My question is simply this, and I do not want to hear that she does not know, I want somebody to be able to answer it. The Minister of Government Services stood up in this House and gave us a projected cost Operation and Maintenance cost for the extended care facility of $2 million.

The Minister has put a line item in her Budget for $1.00 for an extended care facility. Something is missing. Why is there not a projection for the capital costs of the extended care facility if they already have an Operation and Maintenance projected cost?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: We are all trying to be patient and understand each other. I think that is commendable for this Legislature. I like to answer the questions when I can and, if I cannot answer them, I would hope that I would not be considered a dodo because I did not have the answers at hand. I am trying to do the same kind of job as the Member across the House is.

She is asking me a question about something that we had a $1.00 item for - the extended health care facility - and wanted to know why the Minister of Government Services came out with an Operation and Maintenance cost. We have a projected cost of what it would have been if we were to go ahead with the extended care facility. Because of the problems that have occurred with respect to the hospital not being built, and no commitment from the federal government for a submission to go to the Treasury Board in order to make plans for a hospital, we have had to change our plans a bit.

We are identifying $1.00 to build an extended health care facility. As the Member knows, we have to keep that there in the form of $1.00, because it is our intention to do it sometime, but we cannot do it unless we have the money. If she is wondering why somebody has an Operation and Maintenance cost to run that, and asking me to explain why the Minister of Justice has it, I am not sure what kind of an answer I can give her.

We had an estimate of our own costs if it would have gone ahead, and had had the money to go ahead and do it, but we are not going to go ahead and build it because the federal government does not have the money.

Mrs. Firth: I am going to drop this issue, not because I have been given any information, but because I recognize I am not going to get any. I have raised a very clear inconsistency. I will put it on the Hansard record again so it  can be referred to. On December 9, 1987, on page 250, when we were talking about projected Operation and Maintenance costs, which is something I believe you do after you have decided on a facility and the capital cost, the Minister of Government Services said that the biggest single item in the amount is a projection for the extended care facility, which is roughly $2 million.

That is on the record now. I am here to protect not only the recipients of these health programs but, also, to protect the taxpayer. I am going to do that, and am going to move on to another question in this cause.

Perhaps the official, now that he has a copy of the Day Care Capital Program, could draw my attention to the page listing the review panel?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: Page three talks about the review board and its role; it goes on to say it is made up of the supervisor, the placement and support services representative, a representative recommended by the Child Care Association, who is not presently a day care operator or staff of a day care centre or a member of a day care centre board, and the regional services supervisor, south region, and the day care coordinator,Debbie Mauch, who works in my Department as secretary to the board and the project.

Page ten talks about the review and approval process and gives, I believe, the kind of information the Member was asking for.

Mrs. Firth: I looked at the review process; it is very vague so I will wait for the Minister to follow through with her commitment to see whether or not I can see some of the applications with the terms and conditions of contract attached. I also look forward to receiving the names of the three individuals on the review board, which is what I was looking for in the documentation.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I have made that commitment.

Mr. Nordling: I have brought up my concern about the high rate of suicide in the Yukon several times in this session but have had no real response from the Minister. I would like a comment from the Minister at this time as to what direction she has given her Department and what steps her Department is taking to combat the high rate of suicide in Yukon, especially amongst our young people.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: There is no doubt that problem is on the uprise. Every person who knows someone who has lost their life by suicide has suffered from it. We all know there has to be something done. Every time that someone takes their own life, it is a very, very deep tragedy.

The communities that are involved with those situations, where people take their own lives, are all talking about how they are going to deal with it. Our workers in the field are in contact daily with those individuals, and there is no specific plan right now on how it is going to be done. There is a plan in place to try and deal with the situation as it is. This is not only regarding young poor Indian children. It involves older people, younger people, white children and Indian children.

We do not know what the problems are. We know, for a fact, that there have been many attempts of suicide in the Yukon. They are more than I can even imagine. I sat at a school committee one night where someone came out and talked about the number of attempted suicides among young people - teenagers. The number that they came up with shocked every single parent at that meeting.

There is a big job to be done. I am not an expert in suicide, but I am responsible for that part of the situation. The Ministerial Advisory Committee on Substance Abuse is working along those lines, as is everybody else dealing with alcohol, and all other problems - there are certain things that relate to alcohol - and my people do it. It is a big job.

I would like to remind the Member for Porter Creek West that we are certainly not ignoring it, and we are hoping that through the efforts of all of those people involved, we can help with that horrible process. There are a lot of people involved in trying to deal with the alcohol and drug situation because very often the two are combined. I would like to be able to come back to this House sometime very soon and outline a plan that we have. It is going to take a lot of work between religious groups - who are already trying to work with it - and  all of the alcohol resources in the community. I have been in contact with many individuals who have said that there has to be something done.

In the meantime, a lot of communities are trying to deal with that kind of thing on their own. They are saying to us that they need tons of money for this. Other individuals are trying to do it in a different way. Every time that we look at some proposal to try to deal with that kind of a situation, that proposal costs a lot of money. There has to an answer to it, and the department, and other departments, are not sitting back and ignoring the situation. We are all concerned about it.

I cannot be specific on the kinds of things that are happening, but everybody is trying to deal with the situation at hand. It is a tragedy every time someone takes their own life.

Chairman: Any further general debate.

On Community and Family Services

On Placement and Support Replacement Equipment

Hon. Mrs. Joe: That $60,000 is the expenditure for 1988-89 and will follow the replacement schedule, as we talk about every year; guidelines established for the one-, two-, three-, four-, five- and six-year cycles, where you have to replace certain things after those cycles. They include bedroom mattresses, recreation equipment, beds, night tables, living room furniture, appliances, grounds maintenance, car seats and buckets, cribs, high chairs and other infant equipment. Those would take place in some of our group homes: the Liard Group Home, the Klondike Group Home, Lowe Street Group Home, Whitehorse Receiving Centre and the Watson Lake Group Home.

Placement and Support Replacement Equipment in the amount of $60,000 agreed to

On Day Care Capital Development

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The Capital Start Up Grant will contribute to buildings, construction, acquisition or renovation to meet standards. Major playgrounds and furnishings for children and grounds development for a centre or family day home which can be licensed. The Capital Enhancement Grant will contribute to facility renovation, upgrading major play equipment and furnishings for children, grounds improvement for already licensed day care centres, and equipment assistance for licensed family day homes.

Day Care Capital Development in the amount of $300,000 agreed to

On Group Home Renovations

Hon. Mrs. Joe: That is an ongoing thing. It is to resolve major problems with the heating and ventilation system and other maintenance problems with the Lowe Street Group Home. Identified by Government Services, estimating $5,000. Complete grounds improvement in three locations, estimating $5,000. Complete second stage of assessment of future facility requirements, estimated at $15,000.

Group Home Renovations in the amount of $25,000 agreed to

On Total

Total in the amount of $385,000 agreed to

On Social Services

Chairman: General debate?

Mrs. Firth: The Minister’s department received some criticism in the Auditor General’s report. In their response, they indicated that something was going to be done. I am not looking for any great debate or comment but wanted it noted on the record, and I will be looking forward to following it up through other avenues that I have.

On Alcohol and Drug Services Replacement Equipment

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The expenditures will be used to meet replacement schedules on one, two, three, four or five year cycles for detox centres, assets include such items as mattresses for recovery unit, pre-treatment and institutional beds, desks, dressers, tables, light fixtures, arm chairs, chesterfields, household, kitchen and recreational items, and grounds maintenance equipment.

Alcohol and Drug Services Replacement Equipment in the amount of $25,000 agreed to

On Seniors Equipment Replacement

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The connection with seniors’ facilities purchases will be in accordance with one of the five year equipment and furniture replacement schedules and additional program requirements, including such items as beds and mattresses, chesterfields and tables and chairs, major appliances, kitchen equipment, bedroom and dining room furniture, recreational equipment, and grounds maintenance equipment.

Mr. McLachlan: With respect to seniors equipment, is there no money that must be expended in the Capital area under this program for seniors equipment in the new Budget year starting April 1 that will be related to the new facility being built? Where is all the money coming from for the seniors equipment in that building?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: I believe the Member is talking about the new seniors complex. I do not have that in here. I would suspect that would be in the Yukon Housing Corporation Budget.

Chairman: Anything further on this line item?

Seniors Equipment Replacement in the amount of $87,000 agreed to

Social Services in the amount of $112,000 agreed to

On Health Services

Chairman: Is there general debate on Health Services?

On Northern Health Services

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The $1,016,000 includes the federal health expenditures for 1988-89, and they are projected to be $1,451,400, with Yukon’s share being $1,016,000 for the following projects: major and minor equipment replacement and acquisition for health facilities in the community health, environmental health, mental health, dental health and health education services administered by the Northern Health Service, including medical office, electronic data processing, equipment and furniture, vehicle replacement for transportation requirements in locations throughout Yukon, minor building renovations in health centres and health stations.

Northern Health Services in the amount of $1,016,000 agreed to

On Extended Health Care Facilities and Equipment

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The proposed facilities are currently in second year formal planning. Functional programming and block schematics were completed early in 1987 together with capital operating cost estimates. As of March 1987, the estimated capital cost for the extended care facility was $4.5 million. The annual operating cost based on shared facilities, site and service, with Whitehorse General Hospital is $1.9 million, including a projected 39.1 person years.

At this time, project vote authority in the form of one dollar is sought to permit project planning to proceed during 1988-89. At the present time, no further work can be confirmed pending a decision by the federal government on plans to replace the Whitehorse General Hospital. Once a federal decision is taken, the Cabinet will consider available options and a project supplementary may be presented to the Legislature at the appropriate time.

Extended Health Care Facilities and Equipment in the amount of One Dollar agreed to

On Communications Disorders Equipment Replacement

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The capital funding will allow the necessary acquisitions to keep the service current and maintain equipment in accordance with the one to five year replacement schedules, including, for example, the tape recorders, the audiology equipment, hand receivers and transcribers.

Communications Disorders Equipment Replacement in the amount of $16,000 agreed to

On Extended Health Benefits for Seniors

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The funds will be used in connection with Community Health Services to establish a loan bank including essential major medical equipment items such as hospital beds, specialized wheelchairs, walking aids and specialty aid pieces for seniors throughout the territory.

Extended Health Benefits for Seniors in the amount of $6,000 agreed to

On Chronic Disease Benefits

Hon. Mrs. Joe: In connection with the Chronic Disease Benefits Program, capital funds will be used for the replacement of essential major medical equipment items such as manually operated hospital beds, specialized wheelchairs, grab bars and support rails, respiratory equipment, patient lifters and other specialty aid pieces for residents suffering from chronic disease and serious functional disabilities in the Yukon.

Chronic Disease Benefits in the amount of $4,000 agreed to

Total of $1,042,000 agreed to

On Juvenile Justice

On Young Offenders Facility

Mr. Phillips: What is going to be the total cost of that facility when it is complete, and is it going to be complete this year?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: We will know the total cost when the tenders come in.

Mr. Phillips: What is the estimated total cost of the facility? Is it going to be completed this year?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The total cost will be $2.5 million. We will have lapsed some funds for this year.

Mr. Phillips: Did the Minister say that the total cost is $2.5 million, that they will be spending, for this year?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: That is the estimated cost for the entire project.

Mr. Phillips: In the multi-year projects, we have a young offenders facility for $3.61 million. What is the other $1 million for?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: We will probably be giving some of that money back because we did not spend it at all this year.

Mr. Phillips: What is the Minister estimating that the supplementary will be?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: It will probably be in the area of $1 million.

Mr. Nordling: I am a little confused. If we are expecting to spend the $2 million here and bring a supplementary forward for another $1 million, the total cost of the facility is going to be at least $3 million, not the $2.5 that the Minister has mentioned.

The 1987-88 Revised Estimates indicate that $1.6 million will be spent. The Minister said that some of that will lapse. How much of that is going to lapse? How much more will be spent in 1988-89 than is indicated in this Budget?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: We will return $1.5 million this year.

Mr. Nordling: I have that clear. What will we spend in the 1988-89 budget year? I see that it is $2 million here, but the Minister said that $2 million is not accurate - that it will be more. What will be spent in 1988-89?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: We expect that $2 million would be close to the mark, and that includes everything.

Mr. Nordling: If we have a lapse of $1.5 million, I assume that we have spent $100,000, and $2 million more in 1988-89 results in a total expenditure of $2.1 million. Is that the correct figure? I thought I heard the Minister say closer to $2.5 million.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: My apologies. Our figures keep changing. The return would be $1.2 million rather than $1.5 million. Are you now thoroughly confused?

Mr. Nordling: No, it is much clearer now.

Mr. Phillips: On November 28, 1986, the Minister announced a $1.6 million young offenders 12 bed closed custody facility. Why has it escalated so high in cost?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The figures that we had have changed since then. The previous statement I made was that there would be a total of $1.6 million that had been allocated for 1987-88, pending completion of detailed designs. At that time, new estimates of Capital costs can be determined. If changes are required, they will be brought to the Legislative Assembly for consideration in the form of Supplementary Estimates. I think the Member is trying to find out why those costs became so much higher than they were a year ago.

Mr. Phillips: Here we have a facility that was going to cost $1.6 million and, now, is costing $2.1 million; the cost has escalated in a year by over $500,000.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: It is definitely going to be a two year project, and I think that initial money did include the design as well.

Mr. Phillips: My colleague from Porter Creek West just corrected me in that it has not escalated from $1.6 million to $2.1 million. It has gone from $1.6 million to $2.5 million in building this facility. That is a large increase. Since this is one of the highest priorities of this Minister, why has it taken so long to finally get down to calling the tenders for this contract? Do they have any idea how much this two and a half year delay has cost the taxpayer?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The history of the money for the young offenders facility goes back a long, long way. There was an application for funding a long time ago that initially started under the previous government. That was continued on through this government. There was the problem of dealing with the Treasury Board because when the submission was put together by individuals from the Solicitor General’s department and our department, and submitted, there were many changes that had to be made. So there was ongoing work to be done in order for it to meet the criteria to get the money. Many were rejected, including one from the previous government. We were finally able to come up with an agreement, I think in the spring of this year around April or May, I am not exactly sure. It only happened after a lot of negotiations going on between our officials and their officials. Only then could we start looking at a design phase for what we wanted and it has taken a long time simply because of that. In the meantime, we did start some of the groundwork to put in water pipes and whatever we could do at that time.

Mr. Phillips: So what the Minister is telling us now is that the reasons for the dramatic increase in cost from $1.6 million to $2.5 million is that the concept that the Minister announced on November 28, 1986, the almost no bars concept, is no longer there. To meet the requirements for a secure custody - and we said in the beginning that it had to be secure if it was going to be called a secure facility - the cost associated to make it secure had raised the price almost $1 million.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: Yes, there was never any change in the concept of the way we were going to do it. It was always our intention not to have a mini jail. It still will not be a mini jail. The costs escalated because of the length of time it took for this to happen. They escalated because of certain things that they did not anticipate when they were planning it a year or two ago.

Mr. Phillips: I could probably go through pages and pages of Hansard and quote from the Minister’s statements when the Minister disclaimed the previous government’s type of facility and said it was the wrong facility and they were building one that would be much, much cheaper. It is interesting to note that their facility is right up there where we knew right in the beginning it would be. The unfortunate thing is that it has taken two and a half year to get to this and a great many young people have suffered as a result of this Minister’s inaction.

I will not go through all those dates and times. I can provide them for the Minister if she would like to read through them. I would like to move onto another area with respect to secure custody.

How many young offenders do we have in secure custody at the present time?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: We have one person right now who is in secure custody, and that person is out, I believe, getting assessment and treatment. We have eight in open custody in town.

Mr. Phillips: Although I did not read all of the evidence into the record, I do have to read this one report into the record. It was a statement given by the Minister on Friday, March 21, 1986. This is an article out of the Yukon News and is a quote from the Minister:

“Regarding secure custody, our statistics indicate that the most youths sentenced at any one time have been five. Nevertheless, under the legislation, we do have a responsibility for this youth. It is, however, my conclusion that there is no need to build a residential facility for young offenders at this time.”

We now have one, and we have a Minister who stood up in the House and said that we were building this grandiose place for millions and millions of dollars, and now the Minister’s own people have told her that, yes, it is going to cost money to build it. The contradictions in the statements by the Minister from over a year ago to date are interesting.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: Thank you for that lesson in history. It is not only myself for whom things change; they change for the Member for Riverdale North and they change as our philosophies are changed. I am not exactly sure what point he is trying to make, but there is a job to be done and things change as you try to do your job.

I have not changed my mind about what I want to see. I am still looking at what I was looking for two years ago. My philosophies are still the same. I still believe that children have a better chance if they are put in a place that is not like an adult jail - as I have seen over in Yellowknife where their young offenders are right in the adult jail. Despite some of the controversies that have happened in the last couple of years, our plans are still the same. We still would like to keep our own people here in the Yukon. It has taken a lot longer than we expected it would. I am hoping that we will be able to accomplish that. We talk about the cost of a former plan and that cost keeps going back to $25,000. We have all sorts of things on file, as the Member for Riverdale North does, and our figures, as a matter of fact, go up to $8 million; but that is not a big issue anymore. The issue right now is that we need a young offenders’ facility. The young offenders’ facility is going to be built and our young people in the Yukon are going to be using it. It is going to take a little bit longer and I apologize for that; I wish we could have had it now. But it will be built and our young people will be able to use it. They hopefully will be able to stay at home where their families and friends are.

Mr. Phillips: I am not going to go on much longer at this, but it is a serious matter. I almost have to laugh when the Minister says there is a job to be done. We all knew there was a job to be done two and a half years ago, and a great number of young people have suffered because the job just simply was not done. I am also very concerned, and I would like to put it on the record, that we are extremely concerned that, for the first time I think in Yukon contract history, a government is tendering a huge project such as this - $2.6 million or more - in the middle of the winter, thirty below - oh, $3.6 million, I have been corrected - and, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you would agree, as many other Members in this House would agree, at thirty below in the Yukon you do not try to pour concrete, unless it is absolutely necessary. I realize there is a need for this, but the decision should have been made a long time ago. The Minister knows that, and the responsibility for not making that decision has to lie directly with this government and directly with that Minister. We will be watching the costs of this because I think, when all the bills are tallied, you will find it is a lot more than $3.6 million.

Hon. Mrs. Joe: It is very easy for other people to put the blame on somebody else and to charge that person to be responsible for everything that ever happens. It is very easy to do that, but there are circumstances that make these things happen. It was maybe two years ago that I made a decision that I was going to have a young offenders facility built. It was only last spring that we were able to have the funding committed to us, after a lot of work between Treasury Board people and our people here in the Yukon.

There was a lot of travelling back and forth by officials trying to get things done. The final submission would not be done in the proper format. We were only able to obtain that funding in the spring. The Member for Riverdale North is very committed to the same thing that I am committed to: looking after these young people. I will definitely take the blame for certain things, but I will not be taking the blame for other things that the side opposite is trying to blame me for.

Young Offenders Facility in the amount of $2,000,000 agreed to

On Juvenile Justice Equipment Replacement

Hon. Mrs. Hon. Mrs. Joe: The funding will be used for new acquisitions and equipment replacement involving such things as mattresses and beds, recreational equipment, household furniture and appliances, furnishings, drapes, flooring and wallpaper, and instructional equipment. Hopefully, this will be Yukon made.

Juvenile Justice Equipment Replacement in the amount of $30,000 agreed to

On Recoveries, Grants, Contributions and Other Transfer Payments

Chairman: Are there any comments on the Recovery Detail on page 54? Is there anything on Grants, Contributions and Other Transfer Payments on page 55?

Recoveries, Grants, Contributions and Other Transfer Payments in the amounts of recoveries of $615,000, $300,000 and $1,016,000 agreed to

Mrs. Firth: Just before we finish this department, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I understand that there is a major review going on of the legislation in Health Services and that the individual who is doing that is on contract to the government. Could I get a copy of that contract please?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: Yes.

Mrs. Firth: Has the Minister sent a letter or communicated yet with the Government of BC regarding the momography machine?

Hon. Mrs. Joe: The draft letter that was sitting on the Deputy Minister’s desk has gone out.

Mrs. Firth: I will be looking forward to receiving a copy of it along with the four other items of information that I have on my list that the Minister is giving me.

Schedule A - Health and Human Resources in the amount of $3,569,000 agreed to

Chairman: Before we move to the Department of Justice, is it the wish of Committee members to take a brief recess?

We will now recess for 10 minutes.

Recess

Chairman: Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

On Department of Justice

Chairman: General debate?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The overall amount is lower than in previous years, which is due directly to economies and frugalities, especially in the Correctional area. In addition to that, there is an extraordinary item here, which is the church. The various amounts for equipment are very common place and I can make a list if asked; however, it is similar to previous years but reduced in amount.

I should explain that the church is going to be a log church on the property of the Correctional Centre on the hill, but a separate and distinct building. The reason why the amount is so low for a building is that this amount includes materials only. The labour will be supplied by the inmate work crew. It will be a log building with a minimal foundation and no plumbing, but it will have electricity. It will have four small rooms in the building, and a larger church area. The religious symbols will be movable, except for a cross above the door on a steeple-like structure. A model of the church is either on display or will be on display next week at the Justice building. Extensive consultation has occurred with the Ministerial Association about this building, and it is seen as an addition to the rehabilitation of the inmates;  particularly the spiritual aspect of that rehabilitation and also as a work project for the work crew.

Mr. Phillips: I wonder if the Minister could tell us the current status of the study ongoing for the tribal justice system in Teslin?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: There is no capital aspect of that at all, but, as originally announced, there is an evaluation component in that project and the evaluation will be conducted in the spring. It will be done in-house and the report will be made available when it is completed.

Mr. McLachlan: Does the Minister still consider the Whitehorse Correctional Centre to be not overcrowded? Is it still below 100 percent capacity?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Well, the word “overcrowded” is an evaluative term that  different people would evaluate differently. I believe the building was built for 36 - or maybe it is 26, I forget - but the average occupancy now is around about 80. In that sense, it is overcrowded. But the average occupancy is, in fact, about where the population is now. It had gone up to about 100 but it has lowered in recent months.

Mr. McLachlan: What is the size of the church facility and is it intended to be usable 12 months of the year?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I do not have the outside dimensions but it is approximately 20 by 40, or 45 feet. It will have a wood space heater, not enclosed by cement walks, and will be made available for use 12 months of the year.

On Court Facilities

On Recording Equipment

Chairman: Any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: This is recording equipment for use by the justices of the peace in the outlying areas, and it involves the purchase of several recording devices.

Recording Equipment in the amount of $10,000 agreed to

On Video Equipment

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: This is a direct result of the federal Bill C-15 which are particular amendments to the Criminal Code calling for the giving of evidence by especially children in child sexual assault cases in video form so the children are not actually put through the experience of testifying in court. It requires video equipment for the courtrooms to facilitate that procedure.

Video Equipment in the amount of $5,000 agreed to

Court facilities in the amount of $15,000 agreed to

On Correctional Facilities

On Equipment Replacement - Existing Facility

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: In past years, I have given a list of equipment. It is an electric posture bed for the infirmary, VHF hand-held radios for the security personnel, admission storage shelves, a new floor polisher, some recreation equipment for the ball diamond and the skating rink which is there, and equipment for the carpentry shop which is used in conjunction with the work camp that will be in Teslin in the summer; there are some power chainsaws for the collection of wood, and a cement mixer this year.

Equipment Replacement - Existing Facility in the amount of $26,000 agreed to

On New Equipment - Existing Facility

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: This involves a refrigerator for the infirmary; equipment in the kitchen: a food cutter, a work table and a small microwave oven; equipment in the welding shop and carpentry shop, and the camp set-up expenses which are the expenses of installing a septic field in Teslin. That figure is $10,000.

Mr. Phillips: How many years is it planned to leave the camp in Teslin? Will it be there for a period of a couple of years and then moved as convenient?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The present plan is one summer, and the next summer it will go to Carmacks. After that, there is no particular plan, but we have found, through experience, that it is a good idea to speak especially to the municipal council and the Band, if there is a Band, well in advance of the camp moving into the community to identify the work that the council wishes done. That is done in Teslin for one summer, and we will see how the work goes. Discussions will be ongoing with Carmacks for the summer of 1989.

New Equipment - Existing Facility in the amount of $36,000 agreed to

On Church Facility

Church Facility in the amount of $60,000 agreed to

Correctional facilities in the amount of $122,000 agreed to

On Departmental Facilities

Chairman: Any general debate?

On Microfiche Equipment

Microfiche Equipment in the amount of $3,000 agreed to

On Total

Total in the amount of $3,000 agreed to

On Schedule A

Schedule A in the total amount of $140,000 agreed to

Department of Renewable Resources

Chairman: General debate.

Hon. Mr. Porter: Prior to general debate in the discussions with the Supplementary Estimates, there had been a request for some tabling. The Member for Riverdale North had requested specifically a photo essay of life on Herschel Island, and we are pleased to be able to comply with that request today and have for him a photo album of some of the pictures on Herschel Island. Most of his colleagues that were in the previous Cabinet have seen the community.

As well the Member also requested a map depicting the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd in recent years. I also have that for tabling.

The Member for Porter Creek East requested a tabling of the study of the culture and land use of the Little Salmon and Carmacks Band, and that is for tabling.

In addition, the Member requested for tabling information related to the trails work that our department has undertaken. I have asked for that information and have received information but it is not in the form for tabling. I will ask the department to put it in such a form and undertake to make that information available to the Member when it is presentable.

Joining me on the floor are the Deputy Minister of the Department of Renewable Resources immediately to my left, Mr. Bill Klassen, as well as the Director of Parks, Mr. Dave Reynolds.

The budget that is before the Members is very similar to last years, and so I will just concentrate on those new expenditure areas that we have proposed to introduce this year. They are the traveling display under the facilities of the Information and Interpretation and Public Information. What we intend to do is spend $30,000 to construct a display unit, or kit, that we can take around to the communities, to various conferences, to be able to pictorially show the efforts of Renewable Resources. I feel it is something that is needed, we found, in the work we do because there is an awful lot of public education that is done.

As well there are a couple of other items in that branch. We propose to put together a very basic booklet under this particular branch showing Yukon’s large mammals, the areas in which they are found, and the general management objectives describing the government’s intentions with respect to the management of the species. We believe we have gotten up to 15,000 requests in a single year for information about wildlife. We spend an awful lot of time answering questions so we thought we would put it all together in one booklet and when we receive an inquiry we would pass that along.

We are also undertaking a rather ambitious book on the Yukon - an actual history of the Yukon dating back to the formation of the Yukon - and it is very much like the book that we know has been produced on Kluane. We estimate that particular project to cost $100,000, of which $33,000 is budgeted in this initial year. It will be carried out over three years to be able to do this book. It will be a nice table top book - it will be hard cover - and illustrated with coloured photographs. Through the sale of the book, we eventually hope to be able to recover some of the costs that will be involved in its production.

In the park planning area, under Parks, Resources, and Regional Planning, we intend to expend $30,000 in the new area, which is park candidate area selection. As we have debated in the past, we are looking at establishing a  data base with respect to parks. The select committee clearly indicated that there should be further park development in the Yukon. This would be the first year that we would be able to take the information that we have developed in southern Yukon and look at a candidate park selection, analyze all the data we have and recommend the specific area.

As well, there is a Dempster corridor study, which is for $31,000. This is not really new. The previous government commissioned a major report on the Dempster. It has not been followed through. What we propose to do is to spend $30,000 to follow up with the previous government’s initiative on the Dempster corridor and the management questions that are related to that particular highway.

Also new in the Budget is the Forest Resources Management of Commissioner’s Land. We have now the responsibilities for lands that have been turned over from the federal government to the territorial government. Incumbent with that responsibility is the responsibility for forest management. We have no inventory of what forest resources are contained on Commissioner’s lands, nor have we got any solid policy with respect to the disposal and use of those forest resources. So, in this Budget, we intend to spend $10,000 to conduct that inventory to be able to develop the necessary criteria for policy.

In the area of agriculture, as Members know, we have moved on a new grazing policy. One of the critical questions with respect to the issuance of grazing leases is the capability of the lands in the Yukon to be able to provide forage for the animals that would be expected to be held on those lands. Depending on who you talk to in the Yukon, the productivity of the Yukon varies in different regions of the Yukon. The federal government has been using a formula of 40 acres per animal unit. What we intend to do under this particular expenditure area is to go out and do actual drove testing on different lands in the Yukon to determine the productivity of those lands, and thereby be able to develop a more accurate description of how many acres of land are needed for the animals that people will hold on those lands.

Basically, those initiatives are the new ones in the Department of Renewable Resources. I would be happy to explain those initiatives further as we go line by line.

Mr. Brewster: I am going to go about this in a little different way, and it will take a little while. Before the Chairman calls me out of order, I will remind him that the Minister of Renewable Resources read a 200-page document in the House and expected us to reply to us right away. I hope he will bear with me for a while.

It all has to do with the Department of Renewable Resources; however, it also involves other places. I feel that this department is becoming completely an environmentalist unit. It is running around putting in parks and not saying if they are going to be for multiple purposes or not. The Select Committee recommended that all parks be multiple purpose.

The department has put out a study on migratory birds that is biased if ever anything was. I think that it was put out by Yukon conservationists and was probably paid for by the government. There are a lot of things in there that are not required, and a lot of people are getting sick and tired of studies.

Another reason I raise this issue of environmentalists is the Watson Lake placer mining hearing. The newspaper says, “The Yukon government has beat a retreat from its earlier call to stop placer mining in the Wheaton River, and the Deputy Minister of Renewable Resources said that it is all a mistake”. I will not bother reading the rest of it for the record because we have all seen it. It is quite apparent that the department wants to go one way, and when it politically goes wrong, the politicians back them up and go the other way. No one can tell me that this does not happen. I have been in government long enough to know that these things do happen.

Another thing that concerned me very much was the Alsek Heritage River hearing. I will just read excerpts from it. I found it amazing that we were there to open the Alsek River in the Kluane National Park. I signed a petition to bring the Kluane Park into the area, as did many elders and many people who were born and raised here. Most of us regret violently that we signed it now. Most have never seen the park except for fortunate people like me who saw it on pack horses. It is an 8,000 square mile area that is blocked off that has not helped the economy. It has not done anything.

At this hearing, everyone is talking about the Tatshenshini. We are already moving over and grabbing more land. Nearly every person who spoke started with the Tatshenshini. I will read some excerpts, and this government had better listen. Some of this is in British Columbia, but it affects us in the Yukon very, very, very strongly, and we had better start watching - as one placer miner called them - the environmental extremists. I have another name for them.

“In recent conversation with an official of the Environmental Ministry, he enthusiastically bandied about the idea of a heritage corridor or some other type of park along the Tatshenshini River. I was appalled to learn that he had never heard of the Windy Craggy deposit.” I might add that Bill McKnight said, the last time that he was up here, that he had never heard of it. When I showed him some of these things, he brought them back to the bureaucrats and they had heard of it, but they had not told the Minister. They were trying to shove this through. This is a very, very serious thing going on here.

In the same letter, and this is from a geologist for Noranda Mines: “I was also questioning the need for additional parks of any sort in British Columbia. In some US states, the proliferation of parks has proven to be an economic disaster. Regulations mandate that only those rich enough to afford helicopter rides or those young and healthy enough for hiking could enjoy the scenic beauty of parklands away from the highways.”

We have 8,000 square miles up here but the same thing is happening; we are getting no revenue from it. This government is staying right with this environmental thing that we have to stop right accross Canada. I do not think even the Minister can disagree that, number one, the environmentalists did not kill the sealing in Newfoundland, are not seriously hurting the fur trappers, are not seriously hurting the native people who know nothing but trapping. It is very funny how we can fight environmentalists on this side and then join them frantically on this side to turn around and tie the country up. It is a very, very serious thing that goes on.

This is another letter, from Murray Webster, another geologist with the Noranda company, indicating that 1,000-1,500 jobs in a related population of approximately 5,000 will be created in the nearby towns of Dezadeash, Haines Junction and Whitehorse.

In a letter from the Striker Mines: “we are currently developing approximately 900 claims in the Tatshenshini area.”

This is another one from Noranda: :Companies actively involved in exploration in the area include ourselves, Noranda, Kennecot Copper, Report Striker, Geddes Resources, Haines Gypsum, Canadian United Minerals, Kemco, St. George Canada Incorporated, and other independent prospectors."

I would like just to show you how far these emotional things go with environmentalists on such things as this. This is another letter from Noranda, which they sent to the Wilderness Committee for BC: “secondly, we would like to offer these rebuttals to statements made in submissions by the Canadian River Exploration Limited and Yukon Conservation Society.” I suspect, if I recall right but I cannot find it now, that the Department had a very uncomplimentary letter in there doing much the same to make it a heritage river.

I would like to explain so that you will not think I am just talking about BC, and I can explain it so that it will come to you. If the Yukon becomes a heritage river, BC will follow and Alaska is just waiting. I will explain to you just why this is happening. There is no argument. There are two parks already and they want it. Mr. John Wykes, the president of Canada River Expedition Limited and River Outfitters Association of BC stated that millions of dollars will be produced every year, and cites a figure of $2 million, on these trips on the Tatshenshini and the Alsek wilderness. Assuming a 90 day operating season from mid June to mid September, the following condition must be met to generate $2 million in fees. Based on a one day fee trip of $90.00 per day, 22,222 people must take day trips during the operating season. Each day of operation, 247 people must be rafting or kayaking on the Tatshenshini River.

We have one poor little placer miner down there and now we say it is not a wilderness. There are 247 people going to go down there a day. How do you have a wilderness on a thing like that?

These are things that are produced and given to hearings, but there is no basis for them, nothing. This is what goes on all the time.

The mining industry has been in that area - this letter was written on January 20, 1986 - and spent over $10 million. I talked with them last night. It looks like the Craggy Wind is going to go; they have a large tonnage there. They now have a problem of trying to get ore it out of there. Their biggest and worst concern is environmentalists.

I will show you why I am so conerned about this. This is a letter from the hon. Erik Nielsen: “The recommendations that you have put forth on an appropriate management scheme to allow for the development and potential of the area is one which I would support and desire to see implemented. If I can assist further with this recommendation in any way, please call me.”

We have a letter here from Prime Minister Mulroney: “Regional officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, through the Land Use Planning Office, and in cooperation with the Yukon Territorial Government, are undertaking a Tatshenshini River Basin study in order to determine the nature of available resources and interests in the area. In addition, a Yukon/Canadian Heritage Rivers Systems study is being done to determine which rivers or part thereof are suitable for being including in the Canadian Heritage Rivers System, is being carried out by the Yukon and the Department of Northern Affairs. Some 68 rivers will be included in this study.”

Here is another letter from Mr. Erik Nielsen: “The declaration on February 7, 1986 of the Alsek River within Kluane National Park as a heritage river caught many interested Yukoners by surprise. This points out one of the fundamental flaws of the method by which a river is deemed to be a heritage river, in that there is little or no public input and there is a general lack of understanding of exactly what is meant by a heritage river. I have noted these concerns to the Minister of Environment, the hon. Tom McMillan, who is responsible for the particular program.” This is from a man who spent 30 years in Parliament. He probably knows more about government and the Yukon than most of us.

This letter is written by the hon. Tom McMillan: “Thank you for your letter of March 2, regarding the proclamation of the Alsek River in Kluane National Reserve as part of the Canadian Heritage River System. I regret that you were not personally informed of the river’s designation prior to the announcement on February 7.”

That just shows what goes on - a man is very interested and serves in government for 30 years and he did not even know a heritage river was coming. Now how are people in the Yukon supposed to know? It also states in there that the Yukon was going to hold hearings. One of the questions I will be asking the Minister: when were these hearing held? Where were they held? What are the plans?

I am very, very concerned; very, very concerned. There are two things happening here: if we do not do this, undoubtedly the Champagne Aishihik Band is going to get it. The people of the Yukon are going to lose a world class mine that is over 100 years old. I also have a letter in here saying that there is a road planned to go from Yakutat and Glace Bay and over to Haines and not even come down into BC or anything. The Americans are welcome and they will put the road in there for them, to get that business, because they are aggressive, and we will lose everything for a few raft trips to go down the river and a few things like this.

I am very concerned that this department is going this way more and more and more. I sometimes wonder if they look after the game at all. I never hear any reports about game. All the report I hear are about what they are doing to make studies to protect the parks, to make parks and to do this and that - I have no problem with these. I was born in one and I know a lot about parks. But I also know that the parks in Banff and such places - when they were trying to be protected that the Kluane National Park, it is not like you were trying to protect your parks - there is no doubt about it. When they tried this, I can recall as a small boy they had a vote at one time: Do you want to stay with the Banff National Park or do you want to join Alberta? There was no question. When we got through the report on Crydon (?) Canyon, everybody wanted to join Alberta.

There were bureaucrats and big shots coming flying out of Ottawa from every direction in the world. They now have ski tows. They now have tote roads in where people can see things. They do not have to sit in the little town. They can get out to these places. If you make parks - and we will fight you all the way - I insist that they be multi-purpose. I can assure you that I have a lot of people behind me on this Tatshenshini. If you are going to have hearings, you better publicize them, because we are sure going after it.

Hon. Mr. Porter: Responding to the issues raised by the Member, the primary focus seems to be the designation of rivers as heritage rivers. He is correct, and we have already had this debate at considerable length in the previous Budget, and I suspect it will be an ongoing debate in the House. Yes, he is correct, inasmuch as a report had been done identifying 68 rivers. This was paid for under a previous Budget allocation by this department and the Department of Northern Affairs to identify those rivers and to go through a grading system as to those rivers.

In terms of the intentions of the governments, the only heritage river that has been designated in the Yukon has been the Alsek. The only river that we are actively discussing with Ottawa to move toward designation of a heritage river site has been the Thirty Mile section of the Yukon. In this Budget later on, when we move down to the line item, you will see that we are budgeting additional funds for that purpose.

The Alsek had been in consideration for two years prior to the designation of that river. A central point in the Member’s discussion and debate seems to be that, by the nature of the fact that you move to designate a river a heritage river site, that you exclude areas joining to that river from future development. That is not the case.

As the document management guidelines have been drawn up for the designation of heritage river sites, they can be multi-use. It would be dependent on the kind of management regime that you put together to govern the heritage river site. So, the Windy Craggy mineral deposits that lie adjacent to the Tatshenshini - and we are just speaking in the hypothetical, at this point - were the Tatshenshini picked and decided to be a heritage river, you could shrink the corridor that would affect the Tatshenshini to be only so many feet from the actual river bed itself. In that instance, you could then be able to build roads that are necessary to gain access to the mine outside of those corridors and be able to access the mine and be able to move minerals from the mine.

The guidelines and the management provisions that govern the use of heritage rivers are very flexible. Basically, they reflect the basic ideas of the government that puts forward those designations.

Our information is that in British Columbia the Tatshenshini has already been designated a recreational corridor, which in itself does not mean there could not be development. Clearly, the Tatshenshini has been identified as a white water recreational area, and it is recognized by Alaska, by British Columbia and by users in the Yukon as having significant value with respect to that. What I am basically saying in summation to this point is that there is no need for exclusions in this particular question. There is no need to say that we can only have the heritage river designation put to the Tatshenshini, and have no development, or have total development and no designation.

I firmly believe that it is quite possible, if people are willing, to be able to have both if that is the choice of the people, to be able to have developments in the area as well as protect the unique and scenic character of that particular river.

There are other questions that the Member raised in his opening comments. The one I recall is with the Watson-Wheaton River question. The intent of the government was not in any way to make a statement as to the philosophical question of placer mining. Simply, it was our intention to ensure that people were not abusing the placers laws, and establish basically what amounted to  dwellings and houses under the auspices of placer claims. I am sure the Member would support me when I make the statement that we know a lot of abuses do take place, and we felt it was our duty to inform the federal government that the placers laws are for placer mining. If you are going to use the Quartz Mining Act or if you are going to use the Placer Mining Act then your intentions should solely be for mining purposes and it should not be secondary to be able to get some land and use the Act to be able to construct a house. That was a central point in the discussions in effect on the Watson-Wheaton River area.

Are there any further comments?

Mr. Brewster: I think you must realize that it is fine to get up and make these statements. I have three books from people who are worth more money than this government is, and they are very concerned. Craggy Windy alone has sunk millions and millions of dollars. In this last go around, they raised $18 million just to sink a tunnel. You make a statement that you can put a footage on the river. I am afraid you do not even know where it is because the first thing you have to have is a bridge. Nobody wants to sail under a bridge. That is the protest of the environmentalists, we are not going to go under a bridge, so they cannot get out.

I just found the part on the road where they will lose the whole thing. This is from Geddes Resources. “At the moment the only plan for a road that we know about is the possible proposed link to Dry Bay in Yakutat, Alaska, or Glace Bay at the Canadian border. This road would follow, in part, the Alsek and Tatshenshini Rivers and then go across country to the Haines, Alaska Highway. We would propose connecting this road when and if it comes available. Failing that we may have to consider independent plans for road connection to the Haines Highway.”

There are 5,000 jobs if you want them in Alaska. You had better be making some statements about what you are going to do because it also says in here that BC will do and see what Yukon recommends. They will do it. You people went down to the wilderness hearing and came out all in favour of closing the river down.

I would like to just go a little further to show you how far these environmentalists go. This is a letter to the chief administration officer in Haines Junction from the Kluane National Park. “I will respond to your letter of July 23, 1987, regarding Haines Junction interest - including a portion of Kluane National Park in its mosquito abatement program - in two parts. The first will deal with national parks policy; the second part of my response will address specific advice we have received from experts working with the cities of Edmonton and Winnipeg.”

Edmonton and Winnipeg have muskegs, willow and swamps all around. What the Haines Junction people are asking is one little corner where the sewage lagoon used to be. The National Parks have it now, so the four legged little critters will be protected in there. They think they are going extinct. That shows you how dumb people get when they get on these things.

I will just finish this off to prove that there are more people than me concerned about what is going on around here. This is from the Klondike Placer Miners’ Association. “Also, this added to the value of the Canadian economy.” They are talking about the best use in 1987, since back in 1918. “Contrasting this with the situation in Alaska in 1986, where pressure on government regulators by environmental extremists reduced gold production by 16 percent, the number of placer miners by 27 percent, and one mining district shut down placer mining completely for the first time in 83 years.”

I did not make that statement. They made it in Alaska. We are threatened. People are saying we are scaring the placer miners, we are scaring the miners, and they are going to move their money someplace else, because they do not know, because there is no policy. Then, we come out with things like this where the government goes to a hearing and comes out with two stands.

We are going to have to get straightened around. The d