Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, March 5, 1990 - 1:30 p.m.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Are there any Returns or Documents for Tabling?

TABLING RETURNS OR DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Joe: I have for tabling a letter to the staff members at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre regarding smoking.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

Introduction of Bills.

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

Notices of Motion.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I would like to give notice of motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to require that all cars and trucks registered in the Yukon have two licence plates.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would like to give notice of motion:

THAT this House recommends to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the appointments of Jean Gordon and Grant Lortie to the Yukon Territorial Water Board for three year terms.

Speaker: Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Committee of the Whole, witnesses

Mr. Phelps: I have some questions for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation with regard to calling witnesses from the corporation before the Committee of the Whole. I sent a letter up this morning notifying the Minister and the Government House Leader of my intention to ask that witnesses from the Yukon Development Corporation appear before Committee. We hear that the Minister is not going to support my request. Could the Minister tell us right now if he is willing to allow the witnesses to appear before Committee of the Whole?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The item before the House in the estimates will be a $1.00 item for the budget for the Development Corporation, and it is my intention to defend that $1.00 expenditure myself.

Mr. Phelps: We made it very clear as to why we wanted to have the witnesses appear before us. Why is the Minister now saying that he is opposed to having these witnesses appear?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: It is because the expenditure is for me to defend. I am accountable for the $1.00, and I will be the one defending that before the House.

Mr. Phelps: We have the precedent of having officers called before the Committee of the Whole in the past. We have the precedent of officers from the Human Rights Commission being called before Committee of the Whole, as well as officers from Workers Compensation being called before Committee of the Whole. Would the Minister not agree that there has been ample precedent set for having witnesses appear before the Committee?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Well, if the Member wants to talk about precedents, first of all, the Human Rights Commission is in a slightly different category than a Crown corporation in that it is directly accountable to the House whereas, say, a Crown corporation is accountable through a Minister. I would say that the majority of precedents are on the side of the Minister defending a Crown corporation’s budget, rather than officials from that corporation.

Question re: Committee of the Whole, witnesses

Mr. Phelps: We, on this side, proceed on the principle of the public having the right to know what is going on. I find the new coverup strategy of the Minister to be rather outrageous. Can the Minister tell us why he feels that, at this point in time, these witnesses should not be called when, last year at this time, at the Minister’s suggestion, we heard from witnesses from the Yukon Development Corporation, who appeared to discuss what went on up to that point with regard to the running of the Watson Lake sawmills.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Last year, we heard from witnesses with respect to the management of certain questions that were within their purview. As I understand the line of questioning the Member opposite wishes to pursue, it is one he has already laid out in Question Period as to what kind of advice I may or may not have had from corporation officials and what kind of communications I may have given them. A cursory knowledge of our constitutional tradition knows that the advice a Minister gets and the instruction a Minister gives and the conversations between Ministers and officials are privileged. In any event, the accountability for the spending that comes before this House is the Minister’s, not the officials’.

Mr. Phelps: I am unclear, but I am beginning to get it. Is the Minister saying he is worried about the issue of the Henderson’s Corner electrification decision coming up in questions and answers before this House? Is he concerned he might be embarrassed about what the answers might be?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Absolutely not. I am quite determined to support the corporation in the decision it made in that respect. The Member should also know that this is a request for a $1.00 expenditure next year, and I intend to defend that estimate before the House. It is not my officials’ job to do that.

Mr. Phelps: It is the officials’ job, however, to come before the House and provide us with factual information with regard to policies of the corporation and what the Energy Corporation has been doing with regard to looking for new energy sources and looking for alternate energy, and looking at what to do with surpluses, should any exist. Those are the kinds of answers to questions we want in the Committee of the Whole discussion of the estimate.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: With respect, I think the Member is quite wrong. The Minister may bring officials before the bar of the House or to assist him on the floor of the House, but it is the Minister who is accountable. The Minister will defend the policies before this House. It is, of course, quite correct that...

Some Hon. Member: (inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have nothing to hide, especially not from the Member who was advocating one position before an election and now a completely opposite one after the fact. How convenient their memories are.

We have stated our position on the question that interests the Member. If the Member is now indicating he would also like to ask about the strategic decisions and the long-range policies of the corporation, I will certainly be happy to entertain his questions on those subjects when we get to my estimate.

Question re: Committee of the Whole, witnesses

Mr. Phelps: I am rather confused. I find it interesting that last year, under the same kind of request in the budget for a $1.00 expenditure, the Minister was more than willing to call these officials before the bar of the House to answer questions about the operation of the Watson Lake sawmill.

Since that time, he has apparently done a flip-flop with regard to his position on having officials come to answer questions so the public can know what is going on. What has caused his change of heart?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: There is no change of heart at all. Unless the Member suddenly believes Ministers are not accountable - which would be an extraordinary flip-flop for him, since he has attempted to hold me accountable for everything imaginable to do with the corporation - why is he suddenly changing his position and argue that I should not be defending my budget before this House?

In any event, it is a Minister’s decision to decide what officials he or she may bring before the House. It is a Minister’s decision to decide what officials he or she may bring to the floor to assist him or her in the discussion.

I may propose bringing officials at some time and the House may reject my wishes. The House may make a suggestion with which I may disagree. In any case, the Member has indicated he wishes to move a motion. I have indicated to him what the government’s position will be with respect to that motion.

Question re: Health services transfer, union contracts

Mrs. Firth: I have been asking questions about a three-party agreement of nondisclosure, specifically with respect to the terms of reference, salaries and release of contract between the government and the two unions - the Professional Institute of Public Service, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Neither union representative believes the nondisclosure clause covers the specific terms I have listed. The Minister would not take my word for it, but it was publicly confirmed last week by one of the union representatives.

Why is the Minister of Health and Human Resources maintaining this position when the other two parties are not?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do not really have anything to add to the answer I gave last week. The Member has said in her preamble a fascinating thing. She said that none of the unions say something. She then bases that on the evidence of some statement that she imputed to one of the members.

It is the interpretation of my officials that the three-party agreement covered the matters that we are discussing. In any case, I have said that I will table the document at the conclusion of the negotiations that are now ongoing.

Mrs. Firth: The issue here is no longer the document that I am discussing today. The issue here is the information that the Minister brought to the Legislature. To explain it to him again very clearly, the other two parties are maintaining that they made no such agreement respecting terms of reference of contracts and salary dollars in the negotiations.

I believe those two individuals when they tell me that. The Minister is saying that they have made this agreement. I would like to know he is maintaining that that agreement is there if two of the parties out of the three are saying that they never made such an agreement.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am interested to know who the Member opposite is designating as the official spokesperson for those two parties. In her first preamble, she indicated that she was referring to a public statement by one of the parties.

In any case, I am dependent upon the interpretation of the agreement reached at the table and provided to me by my officials. I have indicated that interpretation before in the House and in a communication to the Member. Our decision as to the disclosure of the document now, which is the information that the Member was originally seeking, remains firm.

Mrs. Firth: Could the Minister provide us the specifics of the nondisclosure agreement in writing? It would specifically cover the particular issue regarding the contracts, the salary dollars and the terms of reference. Can he give us something that substantiates that?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have already given the Member the advice of my officials and their interpretation of the agreement of the table in writing. I do not think there is anything I can add to that at this point.

Question re: Health services transfer, union contracts

Mrs. Firth: Again, I am very concerned about the information that this Minister has brought forward to the Legislature. I asked him very specifically when I first addressed the issue of nondisclosure. He told us three times that it was an agreement made at the table, that it might be in the minutes or it might be in a briefing document that he had, but that there was definitely an agreement with respect to those two specific items: the salary dollars and terms of reference of the contracts of the people doing the negotiating. The two union representatives are saying that they made no such agreement so I would like to ask the Minister why he is maintaining the position that they did if those two union representatives are saying that they did not. I have spoken with both of them.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member says she has spoken with both of them but she has not identified who “them” are yet. I am dependent upon the advice of my officials, whom I trust to brief me accurately on the conduct of those negotiations. I have given two reasons why, at this moment, I will not table a certain document but why I have indicated to the House that I intend to table it later. The Member may be having a dispute about the facts or about the interpretation about certain facts but nothing she has said is causing us to change our position.

Mrs. Firth: I am simply saying that the Minister maintains that some kind of nondisclosure agreement exists with respect to contracts and terms of reference of the contracts and the salary dollars. The union representatives, who are representing both of the unions that I have previously mentioned, are not aware of any such agreement. Could the Minister give us some documented evidence that there is such a agreement and that those two union representatives either misinterpreted it or are incorrect?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am sorry to appear to be so difficult for the Member but I am fascinated that, since it is my advice that the three parties - the Yukon government being one - have agreed not to discuss the negotiations - the content of the negotiations and the products of the negotiations that are going on - and since the Member has not identified the people who are speaking to her about these very same negotiations, I am somewhat encumbered in my ability to debate the point with her; in any case, it does not change the substantial facts about the negotiations or my commitment to table certain documents at the conclusion of those negotiations.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister knows very well what is being discussed here. It is a very serious matter because the Minister’s credibility is in question when he brings information to the House that is questionable. This has been debated and discussed publicly, and one of the individual’s names has been mentioned publicly. I do not have to name them here in the Legislature. I am simply asking the Minister that if this nondisclosure agreement exists with respect to the specifics that I have listed, perhaps we could see evidence of it.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: If we did that, we would be violating the basic agreement we are referring to, so that is of course impossible and therefore a quite inappropriate suggestion. I cannot add to the information I gave previously about my reasons for the timing of the disclosure of the information. I want to say, affirmatively, that this Minister always brings to this House information that he believes to be correct and I will support my officials in terms of the information and the interpretation that they have given to the proceeding we are now discussing.

Question re: Na Dli Youth Centre

Mr. Nordling: I also have a question to the Minister of Health and Human Resources that deals with the quality of information being provided, with respect to the young offenders facility. I asked the Minister of Health and Human Resources about damage to the young offenders facility between February 3 and February 19.

On February 27, I received the following response: “The only damage done to the Na Dli facility since February 3 was damage to two bedroom doors. These doors have been repaired temporarily and new solid-core doors have been ordered. The new doors have not yet arrived and, therefore, no cost is available at this time.”

I understand in a sentencing hearing, the court was told that one young offender alone caused about $1,200 damage on February 14 by kicking out the windows of his room and breaking the doorknob from an interview room door.

Was the Minister aware of that at the time the legislative return was provided?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I believe the return I provided to the Member was accurate. If the Member is now saying the return was false based on some information he has from some other source, I will check it out.

Mr. Nordling: I would invite the Minister to check it out. With respect to the legislative return, is it government policy to order such things as solid-core doors with no idea what the cost of them is going to be?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I doubt very much if there is a documented policy to order solid-core doors without an estimate of cost. I believe the normal process of this government is that the purchasing agent, the Department of Government Services, would be assessing the cost and get the best value for money. Once they have acquired that information, they would proceed with the order.

Mr. Nordling: That is exactly what I would expect. Yet, the Minister declined to put that information in the legislative return.

In another legislative return in response to my question on the breakdown of the costs to repair the facility after the breakout, I specifically asked for the cost to repair the damage done by the young offenders, as opposed to the cost to upgrade the security and the facility.

I got a legislative return back that tells me there was $43,900 spent on physical improvements, including the repair of the damage done by the young offenders. There was no breakdown. We are also told there was an additional $19,000 ...

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

Mr. Nordling: ... spent to modify the facility because of staff concerns. How much of this $63,000 is directly attributable to the damage done by the young offenders?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I will have to take that question as notice, too. You can see the problem. The Member demands information right now based on estimates. We give him estimates and, when the final numbers come in, he says “No, see, you were wrong; you misled the House.” You cannot have it both ways.

If the Member is asking for the final accounting of cost and is prepared to wait until we have that number, we can give it. If he asked for an estimate, or the most current information the Minister has, he must accept that that information is conditional until such time as we get a final accounting. There is no other way we can do it.

Question re: Na Dli Youth Centre

Mr. Nordling: The Minister becomes more insufferable every day when we ask questions about the young offenders facility. He is not being reasonable with us, nor with this House.

Can the Minister confirm that one of the young offenders involved in the January 3 escape has been sent to a secure custody facility in Prince George to serve his sentence?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I understand the Member knows about the disposition from reading the paper. Since the sentencing and destination of young offenders is not a political question, I cannot comment other than to confirm the fact that was identified in the paper.

Mr. Nordling: That is absolutely ridiculous. It is nonsense that the Minister cannot comment. It is his department that decides the policy. On February 19 he gave me a big speech about how Ministers were here to deal with large policy questions, not with the minutiae of the department. It is a large policy question, as to what this government and what we do with young offenders. It was obviously the decision of his department ....

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

Mr. Nordling: I would like to ask the Minister if he will answer the question. I would like to know why the young offender was sent outside the territory.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am beginning to think the Member must have flunked law school. If that Member thinks that Ministers make decisions about where young offenders spend their time, he has had a very bad education, not only on the law but in the way governments and young offenders programs operate. This Minister does not make those decisions, and never will. Those decisions are made in respect of the individual case. There is a disposition decided by the courts, and then there is an administration procedure under the Young Offenders Act that decides where young offenders serve their time. It is not a political decision, and for this government it never will be.

Mr. Nordling: Neither is a decision of the court. We built a $3.2 million-plus facility to keep our young offenders in the territory - a secure custody facility. The words of the former Minister were: “So that we could keep our young offenders here in the territory.”

I would like to ask the Minister what has happened? Why are we not keeping our young offenders here in the territory, as was intended in a large policy decision of this government?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The courts may decide to send any number of our young offenders to some place other than our facility. They may be sent south for treatment. There may be a disposition of some matters that will require young people, for a various number of reasons, to be sent to a facility other than the one in the Yukon. There is a secure custody young offenders facility in the Yukon (1) because we are required to have one by law, but (2) because it serves the very useful purpose of keeping young offenders here.

Most of the young offenders who are sentenced to secure custody will serve their time in the Yukon. There will be some offenders who will not, for a whole range of reasons. I do not want to get into a discussion of individual cases, but there will be, from time to time - for reasons of mental health, security, safety of the staff or any other number of reasons - instances when a young offender may not serve their time in the Yukon.

Question re: Na Dli Youth Centre

Mr. Nordling: We all know that there is a whole range of reasons why a young offender may not serve his time in the Yukon. I would like to ask the Minister if he has taken enough interest in this issue to confirm that the reason this particular young offender was sent out, or any young offender who is sent out of the territory, is not because of inadequacies or lack of programming at the facility we have just built and spent so much money on.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I think that is what is called a leading question.

We believe the facility we have here is a good facility. We believe the program we have is a good program. We understand that every single case will have different needs. Every single person in our secure custody young offenders facility will have a different program. There will be some people whose needs cannot be met by the programs available in the Yukon Territory, for a whole range of reasons. That is the fact. It has been the fact in the past. It will be less so the case in the future, but it remains an inescapable fact.

Question re: Northwestel phone number and billing address list

Mr. Phillips: On February 22, I asked the Minister responsible for the Bureau of Statistics about a letter that the bureau sent Northwestel asking for all Yukoners’ names and phone numbers as well a list of all Yukoners’ billing addresses.

The legislative return that the Minister tabled on February 26 only contained half of the information that I asked for. There is no explanation in that return as to why the Government of Yukon wants all Yukoners’ billing addresses.

Could the Minister answer my question now and tell us why the Bureau of Statistics would need this more detailed, personal information if all it plans to do is carry out random digital dialing surveys? Why would it need someone’s billing address for that purpose?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: As the legislative return made quite clear, all the information being asked for by the Bureau of Statistics was a computer copy of the telephone book. That is a public document. Most of the addresses in the telephone book are the billing addresses of the telephone subscribers.

The random survey that they will be doing is expedited by them having access to the computer version of the telephone book. We are not talking about secret information. We are not talking about anybody having inappropriate access to that information. We are talking about carrying out the public business in a responsible way with the cooperation of the telephone company.

Mr. Phillips: Here we are again. This Minister has risen in the House to give us a legislative return that contains only half the answer, first of all. Secondly, this Minister does not have his facts straight. The letter that was sent by the Bureau of Statistics says, “In addition to the publicly available directory information, we request that the subscribers’ billing addresses be included”.

That is over and above the information on the machine-readable copy. Those are addresses that are not publicly available, in some cases. Why did the Minister not tell us that in the legislative return, because he was asked that question? Why would the department want that information?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member opposite, when he was asking this question, was alleging some great kind of terrible conspiracy, some horrible spy caper. The Bureau of Statistics was asking for an electronic copy of the telephone book, something that is basically public information.

The Member’s questions were answered in the legislative return. If he has further questions, I will take notice of them.

Mr. Phillips: My question was quite clear. It said, “I understand the bureau, which is located in the Executive Council Office of this government, has requested by letter from the Northwestel, a list of all Yukoners’ phone numbers and billing addresses. Can the Minister tell us why the Government of the Yukon would want this information?”

He answered to us that it was a machine-readable copy of the Northwestel telephone directory. Over and above that, the bureau asked for, “In addition to the publicly available directory information, we request that the subscribers’ billing addresses be included”.

I will table that letter for the information of the Minister. He obviously has not read it. Could the Minister just answer the question? Could he tell us why the government wants the billing addresses of all Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I will read the tabled letter very carefully. A few days ago, the Member tabled a letter here about bookkeeping services for child care centres. He did something that I regard as very improper. He tabled only the front page of the letter, not the second page, which contained information relevant to his question.

The Member asks why we would also want the addresses of people who are in the telephone book. I suspect that 99 percent of those addresses are in the phone book. It is public information.

They reason they want the information that is outlined in the legislative return: in order to do a survey, which is towards the service of the public interest and the conduct of public business.

Question re: Northwestel phone number and billing address list

Mr. Phillips: Can the Minister tell us if Northwestel has responded to the letter, and can he confirm that Northwestel has refused the request for the billing addresses?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have no information score, too. Perhaps Northwestel is communicating with him and perhaps I will have to tell Northwestel that if they want that information, they should go to the Minister responsible.

Question re: Education act

Mr. Devries: I have a question for the Minister of Education. I was slightly alarmed this morning when I read the article in Friday’s Whitehorse Star voicing the concern of the Yukon Teachers Association’s committee regarding the draft education act, and the deputy minister’s response. Can I ask the Minister of Education if it is his position that the legitimate concerns of the Yukon Teachers Association are, to quote his deputy minister, “absolute bunk and fear-mongering”?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I think the Member should do a little bit of checking around before he begins and ends his research into this matter with a newspaper. I think if the Member were to call the president of the Yukon Teachers Association, the Member might get some indication of what the teachers association is thinking, and certainly what the elected members of the teachers association are thinking, with respect to the process. Clearly, any concerns that are published or even expressed that the teachers have not been fully involved in the process, from the very, very beginning - probably three ago today, would not be speaking the truth. Clearly, the teachers are very much involved in the entire drafting process and in fact have had, on the drafting committee, four out six people participate who are professional members of their association. Those concerns are clearly not true. The gains that the Yukon Teachers Association have made over the course of the drafting process are quite substantial, and I think any communication ought to reflect that, in all fairness.

Mr. Devries: My next question would be: does the Minister deny that the deputy minister referred to the committee’s letter as “absolute bunk and fear-mongering”?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The deputy minister responded to a letter that was sent, not signed by anybody - nobody knows who the author is - to the teachers and to media outlets saying that the process has been unfair or that it is only reasonable that there should be no probationary employees among the teachers, or that there should be no professional evaluations of teachers. The deputy minister responded to that. I think that there was a desire to point out, in all fairness, the full scope of the facts surrounding the situation, and I believe the deputy minister did respond accordingly in that respect.

Question re: Medical expenses

Mr. Brewster: My question is to the Minister of Health and Human Resources. Recently I corresponded with the Minister regarding one of my constituents, who was referred to a hospital in Vancouver. When he arrived there he found he had no room in the hospital and had to find his own accommodation in a hotel. Consequently, his hotel and meal expenses were not insured services under the health care plan or the Travel for Medical Treatment Act and he had to pay all of his expenses himself. What I would like the Minister to confirm is that, if this individual required the services of an escort, the hotel and meal expenses of the escort, plus initial incidental expenses would be covered for two days, yet the expenses of the patient would not be covered. Is that true?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member is asking me something that may be in the form of an opinion. The Member knows from previous discussions on this point that in the precise case of the Member’s constituent, the hotel and meals were not paid for. That is not provided for in our program. That has not been provided in the past.

We have recently improved the measures in terms of medical escorts. The circumstances in which a medical escort is warranted will oftentimes involve hotels and meal expenses, particularly if it is a parent dealing with a young child, or a senior who is incapacitated. Those are two different circumstances.

I understand the Member’s constituent was caught in a situation where the scheduled time for their procedure was not as they had originally intended. In circumstances like that, it has not been the tradition of the Yukon Territorial Government to accept the liability or cost consequences of that scheduling change.

Mr. Brewster: Since there is considerable uncertainty whether a patient will receive services as an out-patient, a day patient or an in-patient, and since only the expenses of an in-patient are covered, how does the patient who is referred outside know what expenses they are going to be responsible for?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member asks, since there is uncertainty, how can they know what expenses they will be responsible for. Every effort is made by our officials and referring physicians, I am sure, to make clear to patients travelling outside exactly what costs we will be covering. I might note, as we have in this House, that costs in this area are climbing quite extraordinarily.

From my own dealings with these kinds of questions, an effort is usually being made by the attending physician here to clearly establish what the procedures and routine is, in terms of the people being referred outside, whether it is a specialist, hospital, or a combination of people. I also know that, when they arrive onsite, sometimes things happen to see those schedules change for a number of reasons.

If you go to see one specialist where you are intended to have one kind of procedure, you may have something else recommended to you, either further tests or whatever. Our people do a good job in trying to cover the costs for such patients, within limits, and they try to do a good job before people go out in making the procedures predictable. I understand there is no 100 percent certainty. Therefore, there cannot be a 100 percent certainty as to the obligations of the patient themselves.

Mr. Brewster: In the travel medical policy that the Minister sent me, why is there nothing at all explained on what would happen to the patient?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: If the Member is making the point that the particular circumstance of his constituent is not anticipated and described there. I am not sure we could do that. There are dozens of variables.

If that is not the Member’s point, then I guess he is making a representation for additional information to be contained in such a pamphlet. He will have to communicate with me privately to make it clear what information he would have us put in there that is not already there, and I would take his representation seriously and look at it, upon its receipt.

Question re: Air B.C.

Mr. Lang: With respect to Air B.C., spring is fast approaching. Last fall, when Air B.C. announced they were discontinuing service, the Minister said he was going to do everything he could to encourage Air B.C. to re-establish its air service in the spring.

It is safe to say there is an all-party agreement here that another airline would be very good for competition, as well as being in the long-term, best interests of the consumer.

Could the Minister update the House to tell us whether or not Air B.C. is going to re-establish its service this spring in Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I have no new information on any decision on the part of Air B.C. The Member will recall that I met with senior officials of Air B.C. last fall; the firm did indicate that, should market conditions improve and should their corporate decision be to resume flights, they would be doing so by approximately June of this year. We are currently in communication with Air B.C. to find out if that is still their corporate position.

Mr. Lang: In correspondence sent back to me on a letter I sent to the Minister last October, he gave a breakdown of the government employee travel on the various airlines - Canadian Airlines versus Air B.C. - and in 1988 there were 1,917 employees who travelled on Canadian Airlines but on Air B.C. there were only 480. In 1989, up to October of that year, 848 travelled on Canadian Airlines, and on Air B.C. there were 211. In other words, there were four trips to one.

In a one-year period, there are approximately 2,300 to 2,400 flights by employees through the government, which is a substantial amount of business. Has the Minister made any commitments with respect to government employees travelling on the various airlines in order that each airline gets a fair share of business?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: There is no deal currently in place with Air B.C. The Member might recall, part of what was taking place last year were those very discussions between the airlines about sharing the available government business, in the form of air travel by employees. It was at about that time that Air B.C. pulled the rug out from under the discussions by announcing their intention to curtail service. Subsequent to that, we had some discussion in early winter of this past year about whether or not they wished to continue the discussions of sharing the available government business. I stand to be corrected, but I believe their position was that they wanted to suspend discussions for a while while their own corporate affairs and policies were undergoing a revamp, and those are the communications we are attempting now to re-establish.

Mr. Lang: Do I take it from the Minister’s answer that the Minister is prepared to commit to utilizing that service for a certain amount of government travel?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The short answer is yes. In the discussions we had with Air B.C., we indicated to them that we were quite prepared to negotiate terms and conditions that would be favourable for their airline to continue to fly here. As the Member noted from the letter he cited, there is not that substantial amount of business from the government employees that would make or break any airline - especially if you share it. The business of airlines relies on much higher volumes than what the government can offer.

To conclude, should those discussions resume, yes, we are prepared to re-examine our current policies on aircraft selection to permit Air B.C. to have a fair share of the action.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker: Government Bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 34: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 34, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 34, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1989-90, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Finance that Bill No. 34, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1989-90, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There are some fairly simple explanations for this bill, many of which were telegraphed in both the main estimates debate for 1990-91 and also in the Second Appropriation Act, the first supplement, for 1989-90.

The bill requests additional funding in the gross amount of $2,169,000 for the 1989-90 fiscal year. The bulk of the money being requested in the supplementary is for the teacher and auxiliary wage settlement, matters that have previously been spoken about during our debate. The main estimates also reflect transfers between votes, the most significant being in the Department of Health and Human Resources to fund the purchase of equipment for the new mammography unit.

In addition to these, there are a few new requests for recoverable expenditures and other items to which we have found it necessary to allocate funds.

In the recoverable category, the largest single item is $552,000 for the French and aboriginal languages program. Members will know that these funds are wholly recoverable from the federal government.

Among the more significant new expenditure items in this bill is $150,000 for the RCMP contract. This figure is based upon the latest assessment that we have from the federal government; it is one over which we unfortunately have little control.

While $2,169,000 in gross spending authority is being sought, the net impact of the supplementary on our surplus position is about $1.3 million. This result occurs because of the recoveries that I have already mentioned and reductions in expenditures in several departments that will not now require funds previously voted.

That is the general outline for this bill. I am sure Ministers will be more than prepared to answer detailed questions in Committee debate.

Motion agreed to

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Item No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Penniket.

Motion No. 2

Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Premier

THAT it is the opinion of the Yukon Legislative Assembly:

1) THAT the recent federal budget cuts are prejudicial and adversely affect northerners, especially women and aboriginal people:

2) THAT northerners have already been disadvantaged by federal budgetary policies such as the dictated formula financing terms;

3) THAT women’s organizations are fundamental to the move for true equality in Canada;

4) THAT aboriginal organizations are vital for building the future of aboriginal peoples; and

5) THAT the aboriginal media are an important voice of the first nations of Canada; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to re-examine its budgetary policies with a view towards eliminating their prejudicial effect on northerners.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: As all Members of this House know, the territories have suffered cuts in formula financing cuts, are anticipating the new Conservatives’ sales tax that will add to the burden of living here, and we are now aware of the latest round of expenditure reductions in the federal budget, which compound the problem and hurt those in the nation, particularly in the north, who are least able to absorb those cuts.

I rise today to speak on this motion, which is of great importance to all of us. It is a motion that addresses the quality of services that we as northern Canadians expect from the federal government.

They are services that we expect from the federal government, not as a special privilege, but as a national contribution consistent with the federation principle of making the level of services and the conditions of people here as close to those of the people in other parts of the country as they can.

The motion addresses the role of the federal government in helping to achieve a condition of equality to which I hope we all aspire.

In the last few days and weeks we have heard federal Finance Minister Mr. Wilson on several platforms defending his budget. He has spoken often of the problem of the national debt and talked about his objective of reducing the deficit. I am sure that his goal of a reduced deficit is one that we all, to differing degrees, share. This government, in its negotiations on the formula financing, indicated that we were willing to carry an equitable share of that burden, never imagining that we would be asked to carry more than our share. I do not think anybody in this House can be pleased about the methods of achieving his objective, especially as it affects some of those in our community least able to weather these financial hardships.

Canadians from all walks of life - the poor, the middle class, small business, women, multicultural groups, aboriginal people - are all protesting that the deficit is being reduced at their expense, this coming, as it does, at a time when we are expecting the seven percent Conservative sales tax, which further erodes our income.

A number of Conservative voices in the country have been calling for reductions in social expenditures. I heard Mr. Michael Walker, of the Fraser Institute, articulating that theme again this weekend, in the media. The Leader of the Opposition in this House, at his last convention, was reported to have said that this government was spending too much on social policy. We have heard in this House, during this debate and this session, almost every single Member opposite call for increased expenditures in some particular area close to their heart. That, I think, sums up the problem for every government and every legislature, in that the demands are always great and the means are always few; that there are many people who advocate, in general, the cutting the social expenditures, but there are very few people who are in favour of particular cuts, especially when they can see the pain that these cuts produced on individuals.

I note that Laurent Thibault, president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, seems to believe that the government should be cutting still more from its budget. I am sure that he makes his comments from a pretty comfortable position.

We think, as we approach this question, as we have as a government, that the federal government should be looking, as they consider cuts such as we now discussing, at who is benefiting from the economic system in this country and who is suffering.

Perhaps we should be looking at people who are benefiting to pay more of their fair share. That is not the case today.

In 1974, I remember David Lewis ran a national election campaign talking about corporate welfare bums. Later, I remember the hon. John Turner, during the time he was Minister of Finance, arguing that the ills Mr. Lewis had addressed had been eradicated. It is plain they have not.

Projections under the new budgetary regime show that, in 1991, real personal disposable income will go down one percent right across the country, and corporate profits before taxes will go up 12 percent.

When you look at this situation and look at who is being cut in the latest round of cuts - aboriginal organizations, women’s centres, the native media - it is hard not to be cynical. It is hard not to believe that the friends of the national government, the people who helped buy them the last election with their massive advertising campaign on free trade, are being rewarded, while the critics, the have-nots, in this country are being punished.

The motion we have before us speaks to the plight of women’s organizations and aboriginal groups, in particular. It is particularly appalling these groups are being hit so hard by cuts, especially at this time in the Yukon Territory.

Last week in the newspaper, I read a letter from a person who expressed the view that Canadians ask for too many extras with their pie, and that the country cannot afford it. The point of this writer was we should be grateful we have a pie, when so many do not. There is a lot to that, but we must remind ourselves that, although we do not like to admit it, this is still a land of haves and have-nots, and the aboriginal people and many women go short on bread, let alone pie.

It is a fact that, today in the Yukon Territory, at a time when we are moving toward a resolution over land claims negotiations, that most of the poor people are aboriginal, and most of the aboriginal people are poor.

It is also true in the nation that most of the poor are women. Older women are among the poorest of the lot. Next are single parents, who are disproportionately women in our society. When they talk about the collective wealth of the nation and look at the huge portion of the national wealth controlled by the smallest 20 percent of the nation, and look at the small fraction controlled by the bottom 40 percent of the population, it is often stated by statisticians and observers of this nation that that situation has not changed much in the last couple of generations.

You will often hear stories about the collective wealth of this nation, which include the observation that women still only make two-thirds of the salary of men, whose income and standard of living drop precipitously when a marriage breaks up or who, as I said before, head the vast majority of single-parent families.

It is cold comfort to aboriginal people, whose low incomes and standards of living are, to put it bluntly, a disgrace to this country. A disgrace internationally. And it should be an embarrassment to us when those supporting apartheid in South Africa were responding to their critics in this country by pointing to the condition of aboriginal people. That was a calculated embarrassment, but it was an embarrassment nonetheless.

This budget tells those whose belts are already in the last notch to pull it tighter. I do not want to speak exhaustively on why the groups that have been cut in the last federal budget are worthy of funding. I know that many other Members in this House, particularly my colleagues, are more equipped to do that than I am; but I want to make the point that the cuts in funding to these groups diminish all of us. In essence, the diminishment is felt especially strongly in the north where our communities are small and women’s and aboriginal organizations provide services that are perhaps available elsewhere in large southern cities.

For example, it may be easy for some to dismiss the cut in funding to the Victoria Faulkner Women’s Centre - 100 percent cut in federal funding, which means they cannot afford to hire a coordinator to run the centre. There may be few MLAs who have ever taken any of the courses they offer there; few MLAs may have ever ordered a book from their library or dropped in for a cup of coffee. But whether we, in this House, know it or not, important work has been going on behind the scenes in places like the Victoria Faulkner Women’s Centre and other organizations like it. The quiet support that organizations such as the women’s centre offer to women all over the territory has been cherished by its recipients. One woman told us that when the women’s centre closes, there would be nowhere downtown where she could nurse and change her baby; when her newborn was downtown and it started wailing, it was a great comfort knowing there was somewhere she could go where she could calm down the baby, have a cup of tea and speak to other women.

These are small things to some people, but to many women they have a great value. This budget, inadvertently perhaps, takes away even these small comforts, which are very important in a small northern community like ours.

The other day, in a debate on another matter, we had a Member referring to his apocryphal constituent, the single parent with two kids. This is the kind of constituent who suffers by this cut; the kind of constituent who also pays taxes and contributes to the national purse.

I doubt if there is any legislature in the country, less than this one, which needs to understand the importance of aboriginal organizations to the political and social development of the Yukon.

Whatever disputes may have occurred from day to day during the life of those organizations between the Members of this House and the leaders of the aboriginal community, it remains a fact that those organization have helped change this territory for the better.

The fact that we are negotiating our land claims agreement with the Council for Yukon Indians speaks for itself. Consider the consequences if funding for such organizations was slashed everywhere except for those few Indian organizations that are already at the negotiating table. Consider the consequences of that. Consider the message that it sends to aboriginal people everywhere in this country.

How does the federal government think that other aboriginal organizations are going to be, one day, in a position where they can assist their people in negotiating land claims if they have no support now? How will they do the research, prepare their legal cases, document their claims, hire negotiators?

As we all know, the land claims process is developmental and social as well as economic. Settlements that benefit all Canadians, that benefit entire communities such as ours are not quick and easy to achieve. In this territory, we have also seen the great importance of the aboriginal media.

For the first time in our history, we are seeing new stories presented without the traditional southern slant or transplanted journalists. Indian issues are now being explained as news rather than as special interest items or as colour pieces at the tag end of a news story. Indian people are being trained in both the print and the visual media.

Let us be honest. Before Nedaa or Dannzha, how many aboriginal young people were being hired by the media in this town? Cutbacks threaten the ability of aboriginal people to get their news out and have it delivered by their people, to have the other side of many important stories to the whole community here. That is essential in a democracy.

Last week when Mr. Gerry Weiner, the Secretary of State, spoke on cutbacks, he suggested that groups affected, women’s groups and aboriginal organizations, hunt around for other funding agencies. It was suggested that they should try and earn more money themselves. We are not talking about professional organizations here or Chambers of Commerce, whose members may have access to surplus cash.

What monied constituency anywhere, what monied constituency in the Yukon is going to finance the operation of the women’s centre, aboriginal organizations, the aboriginal media? Perhaps, in some way, Mr. Weiner’s people had some strange cultural throw back to a patriarchal age of old. It was maybe, by implication, suggested to the women’s organizations that they go see their husbands or their fathers for this money. Perhaps the aboriginal organizations are supposed to go to God-knows-where, to the great white father of the last century.

The organizations that we are talking about have been funded by the national government to achieve in certain national purposes. You cannot run the CYI with a bake sale, and as far as I know, there are few aboriginal philanthropist organizations eager to help underwrite the native media. John Kim Bell has been doing work raising money in the private sector for aboriginal artists and performers but the kinds of sums involved are tiny compared to the needs of the political, social, cultural and journalistic organizations in this country.

There is no other potential available - and I use this word advisably - patrons or matrons of these organizations other than the national government at this stage of our development. As I said, these kinds of cuts, at a time when so many people in the great centres to the south are doing so well, and according to statistics that have come out nationally and have been commented on by the Auditor General, there are so many people who are magnificently wealthy and there are so many corporations that are magnificently wealthy, and are escaping taxation altogether, it is amazing that we see cuts being applied to those who can least afford them.

There is a danger, with these kinds of cuts, that the perception will go out that the federal government is following its twin angels: that it is rewarding its friends on one shoulder and punishing its enemies on the other.

I have already noted how before-tax profits will go up for corporations while personal disposable income will go down again this year. It is important to note what has been happening in the last few years because the share of the total tax pie, which is being borne by individuals, versus by corporations, has been changing for the worse in recent years.

There will be people in this country, I am sure, who will be bound to note that at a time when the cold war is thawing, there are no cuts for defence spending in this budget, only a freeze. There will be people who will be bound to note that Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, our spy agency - surely, with the easing of East/West tension, an increasingly irrelevant organization - gets an increase of $33 million. I am sure there are a lot of advertising agencies very happy over the $24 million that is going to spent to spread the gospel of the GST.

We should not wonder, then, that people are going to be suspicious when they realize that those organizations that have been cut the most severely are among those that have been most outspoken in the criticism of the national government’s agenda, particularly in the social policy field. Rather than address the inequities in the country, it seems the national government is determined to starve its critics.

One other very disturbing aspect of the cuts being made is that they appear to be the proverbial thin edge of the wedge. At this point, the most visible cuts are to what have been labeled discretionary programs: programs for women, aboriginal peoples, youths, multiculturals. The national government party, the Conservatives, have promised so many times in the past not to cut the social programs, which benefit all Canadians. This has been referred to by the Prime Minister as the sacred trust. While this budget does not do so explicitly, it certainly does covertly. The two-year freeze on federal funding under the Established Programs Financing Act, means that the provincial governments will pay an increasingly greater proportion of their own funding for medicare and post-secondary education.

We know what is happening to health care expenditures in the country. We know what the demands are for post-secondary education at a time when we are preparing ourselves to compete in the world economy. These cuts will hurt.

This was a field that was originally occupied by the federal government to guarantee Canadians across this country, wherever they lived, would be ensured a minimum level of medical and educational services. A reasonable person would fear this freeze starts us well on the way to re-establishing have and have-not provinces - perhaps have-not territories, as well.

Coupled with caps on the Canada assistance plan for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta - something that is being challenged in the courts as unconstitutional - what is foreshadowed is a definite shrinking of the federal responsibility for national programs.

For the north, that is bad news for two reasons. One is that we are more dependent on the federal government for money than are any of the provinces. That is a fact we recognize. We recognize that the formula financing arrangements that were entered into between the territories and the national government were very important and satisfactory for the territories. We supported the initiative by the Drury Commission, set up by the previous Liberal government to have this done. We thank the subsequent Conservative government for implementing them. In this round of negotiations, we even offered to take modest cuts, commensurate with the cuts going to the provinces, so that we could make our contribution to the deficit reduction without hurting the people of the territory, which we argued would have been done by cuts equal to those experienced by the provinces.

Because we are more dependent on the federal government at this point in our history - even though we are reducing that dependency, we are more dependent than anywhere else - we have to be concerned about these changes in federal spending patterns. Freezes or reductions in funding on any national program the Yukon is part of have to be of concern to us.

Second, these services cost more in the Yukon where our small populations and long distances add to the expense. This is particularly so for social programs. The privatization agenda of the national government is apparent, as is its strategy for implementation. They have privatized De Havilland and Air Canada without much protest. The post office will be privatized, Petro Canada will be privatized. More people will be upset at that, but there will be some people who will love it, especially those who end up owning these enterprises - no doubt friends of the national government.

We will then see the privatization of other public services. I do not know what a privatized highway system or education system or health system would be like. I am pretty sure it would not be as good as the one we now have. Once we lose that tradition of public service, that high ideal of public service, if it is sacrificed on that altar of private profit, this country will be a smaller, meaner, greedier place than it has been in the past.

I will not say most of the users of these services provided by the people subject to cuts - aboriginal people, women’s organizations, the readers of Dannzha or the listeners to CHON or viewers of Nedaa - for the most part would not be in any position to organize an effective protest against these cuts.

They will probably not be heard in the national media. There will probably not be any editorials on their behalf in the Globe and Mail, and I doubt if the cuts will qualify for the lead item in the national news.

Nonetheless, they are important and they are potentially tragic. I do not personally like the direction that our national leaders are taking us with these cuts. I feel for the organizations that are suffering them. I think our community, the Yukon Territory, will be a little less pleasant and worthwhile place to live with the passing of the women’s centre, with the passing of the aboriginal media, and I know for a fact that the kind of changes all Members in this House want to make to improve our society, improve justice and equality in our society, will be that much harder without properly financed aboriginal organizations to carry out their leadership role in the process.

Therefore, I urge all Members in the House to support the motion before us.

Ms. Kassi: First of all, I would like to thank the government for bringing forth this motion at such a good time.

There is probably no one in this House today who would not agree that the Yukon is the most beautiful place in Canada. We still have clean air and clean water, fresh lakes; we have many people who hunt, trap and fish and live off the land - aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. We are surrounded with natural beauty, which attracts visitors from around the world. Through shows and documentaries produced by organizations such as Nedaa, Northern Native Broadcasting, we are showing even more people what this Yukon is really like. Northern Native Broadcasting has done many shows that teach about the world. Nedaa has presented the work of many people and reaches into homes of natives and non-natives. These programs that are produced by CHON radio and by Northern Native Broadcasting’s Nedaa, have contributed a lot to the Yukon in building the cooperation between the non-aboriginal people and the aboriginal people in this territory.

This is something that we know when we live here. This is something you know if you are interested in knowing it, but it appears there are some people in Ottawa who just do not know these kinds of things, these things that are so important to the people in the Yukon Territory.

Northern Native Broadcasting is one of those organizations that is being hurt by these cuts in the new federal budget. So I stand in this House today in support of the struggle of the aboriginal peoples in Canada. This motion must be seen as more than a gesture of support for our people. It must be seen as a crossroads, a time when we let the world know that we will not be silent when the survival of the first nations is threatened.

As it is now, the aboriginal people have a hard time getting employment in many areas. The organization such as Council for Yukon Indians, Skookum Jim’s Friendship Centre, Northern Native Broadcasting and Dannzha employ a few aboriginal people in the Yukon Territory and they are being drastically cut - some are being cut right out of existence. I want to know why. I need to know why. What are the reasons for this?

These budget cuts have been brutal to our organizations, to the aboriginal, cultural and communications programs in Canada. Aboriginal programs represent a small portion of the overall government budget but will suffer more than 45 percent in cuts.

Aboriginal programs are at risk of being totally gutted by this senseless approach of balancing a budget. The federal government has shown great insensitivity, when more than $15 million dollars can be spent on Canada Day. Can you imagine that? Fifteen million dollars is spent on the celebrations of Canada Day. All that is being spent in one day.

I become very angry that somehow there is no money available for lasting and socially significant programs of the kind supported by aboriginal organizations in this country. Right here, Northern Native Broadcasting is affected by a significant cut to its budget. There is a current 16 percent cut to funding from the Secretary of State’s northern native broadcast access program, which in dollar figure comes to $272,960 over the next fiscal year.

This is a devastating blow to a program that has already suffered, due to inflationary losses over the past five years, effectively reducing its funding by 24 percent before these latest cuts. This means that since the beginning of the program, they will have lost 41 percent of their original funding. What is the result of all this in human terms? It could mean shorter broadcasting days, staff layoffs, program cutbacks, all this when we are just beginning to get off the ground.

To quote Lantry Vaughan, executive producer of television at NNBY, “It is back to simple survival again.” Make no mistake about it, we will all continue to fight this attempt to silence the native media. Aboriginal communications has been the way to educate many people, to reach into the homes of people who would otherwise be isolated, either because of language barriers or distance.

Aboriginal broadcasting has brought programming to our people in our own languages. It has talked about things that are important to our people. CHON-FM radio, broadcast throughout the territory, translates news and happenings around the territory in several aboriginal languages. People rely on that in the communities here.

These cuts are an attack on our people. Core funding is badly needed for our organizations like these to exist. Look at what has been presented to us today by this government in Ottawa. The native friendship centre program has been cut entirely. The local Skookum Jim Friendship Centre here is struggling to bring AIDS awareness to the Yukon Territory, to continue with its alcohol and drug awareness programs with very little budget.

They have a coffeepot and a teapot sitting in the front room that is available for people who live in the streets in Whitehorse, who are homeless. They go there every day to get a cup of coffee and maybe a sandwich or some stew and bannock. That friendship centre is vital to this community.

To add insult to injury, national bilingualism programs have benefited to the tune of $11.3 from Weiner’s “take-from-the-weak-and-give-to-the-strong” redistribution. Look at these figures. Look at the gain of $8.2 million for language training programs for minorities. Look at the budget for translation services that jumps to $108,000, up $2 million from the last budget. The so-called English/French language promotion gets an extra $1.1 million.

Here in the Yukon, the Franco-Yukonnais Association has worked to support aboriginal language programs as well. There has been a spirit of cooperation that is characteristic of small communities. My first language being Gwich’in, I value the French language as well. I am taking lessons to learn that language.

Still, these budget cuts to aboriginal programs are threatening to destroy the face of cooperation here because people in Ottawa do not understand how we do things here in the territory. On top of the direct cuts in funding, the feds are capping the Indian and Northern Affairs budget at five percent, although health, education and the comprehensive claims programs appear to increase by eight percent. The Indian Affairs budget has not kept up with inflation since 1984.

All this would turn even the most confirmed optimist into a cynic, and an angry one at that. I feel a lot of resentment and frustration building here and all across the country. The Ye Sa To budget has been cut. Dannzha is essentially finished except for the fight by the people who work there and the support they receive from others. This is a publication that is read internationally. Its reputation is such that it has become a collector’s item because of its full-colour, glossy format. This is a publication that puts about $200,000 into the Yukon economy annually.

Ye Sa To bridges the gap between native and non-native Yukoners, as well. This communications association documents the heritage of the Yukon and increases communication within the territory. The society works to preserve the life stories and knowledge of our elders. So you see how seriously these budget cuts affect our culture. We have been trying to build and sustain pride of the first nations and, now, we are tripping with a backwards fall.

Nationally, the $3.5 million native communications program is being eliminated. This is how it reads as a budget line but, in terms of human impact, this cut is devastating. Our communications programs are being nipped in the bud. How can this be justified? How can supposedly responsible people sit back and watch the alienation of the very communications programs that have given so much hope to our people?

Last year, the Tories cut funds for international aid. This year, the aboriginal people of this country are being pushed beyond the limits into a Third World status. We cannot tolerate this kind of treatment. Aboriginal people in this country have been exploited, hounded with racism, injustice and violations of our cultures and traditions for generations. Now, here in the 1990s, my generation and my parents and my children are being threatened again.

I really wish Nelson Mandela well in his struggle in South Africa. I wish the African National Congress well in their fight for their own land. However, I also want people right here to take a look around, to stop and have a look here. Is our government that much better than the white minority government in Madela’s homeland? Are Brian Mulroney and Gerry Weiner any different that Mr. De Klerk, the prime minister of South Africa?

We, the aboriginal peoples in this country, are faced with cultural genocide. Our fight is as significant as the fight of the aboriginals in Australia and the indigenous people in Brazil. It has only been through the work of so many of our organizations that the tide of cultural genocide had begun to turn in recent years, and we need to be able to maintain our lifeline.

We have a right to our languages. We have a right to our traditions. We have a right to the funding that is needed to keep our organizations together. I am angry at these budget cuts, but I am not surprised.

I am not surprised at all. These cuts represent another broken promise, another check to our cultural sovereignty. We have seen it so often before that our patience is really wearing thin. Northern Native Broadcasting, Skookum Jim Friendship Centre, the Council for Yukon Indians, and all these organizations across this country have been working to bridge the no-man’s land between aboriginal and non-native groups in Canada. It has taken years to build up a professional reputation of quality work, and that reputation is at risk with these cuts. The work will not continue, and the link between worlds will become tenuous once again.

Every Member in this House has a moral obligation to support this motion in the case of this most recent assault on the very survival of the aboriginal peoples in this country.

Mahsi-cho.

Ms. Hayden: I rise in support of the motion, and I wholeheartedly support the statements made by my colleagues. It is my intention to briefly touch on the human dimension of the impact of the budget cuts inflicted on the women of this country.

This budget is a serious setback for women after so many years of struggle, from one generation to the next. Within the lifetime of some of the women who still live in this territory, we have moved from being men’s chattels to a position where we can own property, go to school and travel by ourselves - usually without feeling we will be sexually assaulted. We are still running into roadblocks, systemic barriers that confront us every day, especially in the area of employment and political representation.

Agnes McPhail was the first woman elected to the Canadian Parliament. Yukon’s own Martha Louise Black was the second. Nellie McClung was the focus of the person’s case. Now we have Audrey McLaughlin, the first woman to head a political party in Canada, or North America, for that matter. All these women have become symbols of woman’s competence over the years.

So why, in 1990, are we sitting here confronted by budget cuts that threaten the thread that knits women together across this country? We are once again reminded we cannot for one minute abandon the cause of our own personhood. These budget cuts are a question of empowerment. Whenever there is a tightening of the purse strings, it is women who must pay, women of all races. Whenever there are financial problems or a squeeze in the employment market, it is the women and aboriginal peoples who bear the burden.

In recent history - or more clearly, herstory - we look back on post-war propaganda that showed women as suburban Suzies who happily laid down their wartime work to return home and have the babies that would make the western world strong.

That was the propaganda. The reality was that large numbers of women, who had been recruited to work in munitions factories and other war support industries, became strengthened in their resolve that they could indeed have control over their own future and lives. They had suffered hardship in the Depression. They had been powerless to stop the assault on their homes and families, when husbands, fathers and sons were called to fight in the war. They had found new strength and were not going to let it go.

When the men came home, the women were dispensable, as far as industry was concerned, and that is the trend: when there is a tightening of the budget belt, it is the women who lose.

Women’s organizations are reeling with the impact of these cuts. The Victoria Faulkner Women’s Centre in Whitehorse will have to close. With a budget of less than $30,000, this centre offers information and services that would cost governments or other agencies much more to provide. Some of you may remember that Victoria Faulkner was a traditional Yukon woman. She was a tireless worker, whose tenacity represents the very principles we must struggle to maintain. She supported herself as secretary to various Yukon commissioners and, typical of most women in their daily lives, never received any recognition until she was asked to lend her name to the Victoria Faulkner Women’s Centre.

The women’s centre has become a place where every woman is recognized for the individual she is. It is a place where women can expect to find a sympathetic listener and a place where their kids are welcome. That is not usual in our society. The centre supports a library and sponsors programs that deal with issues central to the lives of women. The centre has been an oasis for women since it opened its doors in 1974, some 16 years ago in the then YWCA building.

As the Premier has said, these budget cuts are the thin edge of the wedge. Make no mistake about it. Unless we gather together and fight against this unthinking stroke of the pen, women’s groups are all at risk. The Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women that sponsors the Julie Cruikshank bursary for women returning to learning here in the Yukon, and which promotes education by and for women right across this country, has had its budget cut.

Research organizations and women’s publications have been targeted for cuts of up to 100 percent, just as has been the lot of women’s centres across the country. As I understand it, the Yukon Status of Women Council is at risk in the year to come.

Last year, the women’s program at Secretary of State suffered a $1.8 million cut and, this year, the program is slashed by $1.6 million. That is more than $3 million in just two years. I cannot overstate my sense of disillusionment and my anger at where the cutting has been done. The one branch of government that has supported social action has been so dramatically cut as to be rendered financially powerless.

Just as an attempt is being made to silence aboriginal people by these cuts, so are women being threatened. Without a voice, we are all without power.

Once upon a time, during my lifetime, women’s institutes were the foundation of women’s action in this country, and feminists were also involved in labour, farm and other issues affecting Canadian society. It has been feminist organizations that have pushed for charter rights for women, equal pay for work of equal value, child care, social reform and the community development necessary for healthy neighbourhoods for women and their families.

I am angry at the insensitivity of a government that cuts programs that are so vital to the very lives of many women in this country, while maintaining a $14 million budget to advertise the goods and services tax. So women, particularly women who are single parents and struggling to make ends meet, are the ones who will pay double - first, to the goods and services tax and, then, through this budget - when they cannot get the services they need.

We have a history of survival. In 1899, a group of cottonmill workers in Montreal typified this history of survival when they fought for wage increases equal to those of male workers.

In Canada in 1990, we are still fighting that battle. There is a sick joke, some sick humour that has been around for most of my life that says, “A woman is only a husband away from welfare.” I do not find that funny, but unfortunately it is still somewhat true in our country.

Other women have followed those first textile workers, Nellie McClung, Emily Murphy, Idola St. John, Therese Casgrain have all persistently pushed for recognition for equal rights. It was women, Eleanor Roosevelt and others among them, who guided the development of the universal declaration of human rights in 1948.

In 1954, the federal government set up the Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labour. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women was in place from 1967 to 1970. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women was established in 1973. In the same year, the women’s program in Secretary of State was set up.

The National Action Committee on the Status of Women came into being in 1976. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, guaranteed equal rights to men and women.

Obviously, we cannot rest on past accomplishments. We must continue here at home and internationally to fight for the freedoms and services that are the rights of women. These budget cuts are the thin edge of the wedge, a replay of the past. They are not okay. We cannot condone them.

On behalf of Yukon women, I urge the Government of Canada to re-examine and reconsider its budgetary policies that so adversely affect women and aboriginal people in Canada.

Mr. Joe: Why is it that the people who make less are the people who pay more when there is a problem with money in the federal government? Why is it that the organizations of the aboriginal people in Canada are being asked to take so much responsibility for the budget problems in this country?

Look at other programs that are been cut, human rights programs and other programs that cost so little in terms of what is spent on other things like national birthday parties.

Women’s centres across Canada are important to the people they serve just as aboriginal organizations are important to first nations peoples. I am concerned that some of the housing programs that are important to Yukon people will not get the same funding, the spending for social housing has been capped and this will hurt people who have low or fixed incomes.

The legal aid budget has also been capped. People who cannot afford to pay for lawyers will be the most hurt by this.

We have heard what Members in this House have to say about the great cuts in the budget to aboriginal programs and organizations. We have been working for a long time now in Carmacks to build spirit and trust and cooperation between the band and the village. It is the kind of cooperation that will let us get things done that are important to all the people in the area.

These budget cuts hurt the spirit of cooperation. Another promise by the government to the aboriginal people has been broken. I know that we will continue with our work together in Carmacks but I ask why this kind of effort cannot be given the chance to work in other parts of the country too.

We have a motion about literacy on the order paper in this House. I know that these budget cuts will come up again when we debate this motion because communication has so much to do with literacy. Native media have been trying to do something for people who cannot read very well, ad they have been doing well, Mr. Speaker.

It is sad that the federal government does not see this work as important enough to continue support. The organizations that represent aboriginal peoples in Canada have developed programs that work with their people. They know things that others do not know and they want to continue to do their work and deliver their programs.

These budget cuts come at a time when we should be building for the future, not cutting this down.

There is much to be done to show the Government of Canada that we will not accept this position. We cannot accept this decision. We will not accept this decision. The future of too many of our people is at stake. Thank you.

Hon. Ms. Joe: On Wednesday, March 7, native people in the Yukon will be marching for the survival of a culturally-vital organization of all the aboriginal people of the Yukon.

The Department of the Secretary of State is responsible for multiculturalism in Canada and the federal government takes great pride in the many programs offered in this country. Only last week I received in the mail a kit to celebrate March 21 as a day to end racial discrimination in Canada. Yet, at the very same time, this same government is reducing every meaningful program that not only preserves the culture of our native people, but also the programs that share this culture with nonaboriginal people.

In jurisdictions like the Yukon, these programs are extremely important because they impact, one way or another, on nearly every person in the Yukon. The development of land claims in the Yukon is of interest to everyone and the aboriginal media have to be commended for providing all people in the Yukon with day-to-day information on this very important issue, as well as numerous other community issues.

I remember, very early in the 1970s, when the aboriginal people of the Yukon were looking for a way to communicate their needs, their aspirations and their culture with the rest of the Yukon. I remember sitting down with a group of other people to put together a submission and a budget to tell the federal government that we in the Yukon were looking for a way of doing this and asking for funds. I remember receiving a very small grant one year to put out a newspaper called the Firestarter. That was a very short publication and I believe that Frank Lacosse and other people were the editors. That paper evolved into the Yukon Indian News.

The Yukon Indian News was a publication that was very valuable not only to people in the Yukon, to other cultures, but to the rest of Canada to let the rest of the people know the kinds of things that were happening here in the Yukon. As time went by, the publication was then called Dan Sha, and you could see a lot of important things happening as a result of those publications. It is a problem now because the federal government is saying they cannot do it any more. We work toward having something that is so important to all cultures, and then all of a sudden we are told that it is not important any more. I cannot accept that; I cannot accept it at all.

I remember also in the early 1970s putting together a budget and a submission to the Secretary of State to start an organization called the Yukon Association of Non-Status Indians. It was our position at that time to make not only Yukoners aware but the rest of Canadians aware of the many discriminations facing aboriginal people because of certain things that caused them to be non-status Indians. We have seen a lot of progress made over the last two decades. We have seen what happened to Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act where many Indian women lost their status through many discriminatory situations. We have also seen Bill C-31, which rectified that, but the problems are still there. Because something happens to be improved and because some discriminations are done away with does not mean the problems are not still there.

I believe these cutbacks to the native communications society, aboriginal associations, friendship centres and political organizations will virtually paralyze any development the aboriginal people have been able to contribute, not only to the Yukon but also to Canadian society.

I also experience some dismay when I note that native language development will suffer severe cutbacks. On a positive note, I understand French language development will not be touched, but on the negative side the native language development program will suffer serious deficiencies. Is the federal government telling us that the French language is more important than the native language? Who knows? In the Yukon, it is the native people who are in most need of language assistance, yet this program will be cut.

These cutbacks may not only be seen as affecting native people; in the north, the cutbacks affect everyone in the Yukon because aboriginal people play a very large role in the development of the Yukon.

These cutbacks, along with the decrease in formula financing, as well as the Conservative sales tax, have left the average Yukoner, particularly native people and women, with a huge burden that somehow or other does not seem quite fair. Cutbacks to the women’s program funding is very serious. Both sides of this House have been very concerned about the problems of women in the Yukon. The recent Montreal killings and the even more recent sexist remark by Mr. Crosbie have left us with plenty of evidence that women’s programming is essential to improving the quality of life for women.

Because we do not have the funds available to us that the provinces have, it has been recognized that the Secretary of State has a certain responsibility to fund the local women’s centre. The Secretary of State program was established because the 1948 universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the United Nations and Canada, proclaimed the following as a right: motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. Following this, Canada signed the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1981. The Convention states that discrimination against women shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex, which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition or enjoyment exercised by women.

This is irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms, on the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. This recent round of funding cuts will limit women’s ability to operate knowledgeably in these fields. Cutting funding will not cut the need for the services the women’s centre offers, such as information on women’s concerns and a lending hand on legal, medical, social and educational employment, housing and child care assistance.

The cuts were supposedly to save money and reduce the deficit. However, these cuts will cost the government more in the long run because we have been offering services to women for pennies that would cost the government hundreds of thousands of dollars to offer themselves. For example, killing the women’s centre will mean an increase in police and health services, since women will lose an avenue to access services to end family violence.

Canada has signed many national and international declarations of support for women. On paper, it looks like Canada is a world leader in achieving equality for women. That reputation is on the line, and continued action, such as these cuts, will give Canada a dismal reputation here and internationally.

I was so dismayed when I found out about the cuts that, on February 28, I wrote a letter to the Minister responsible for the Secretary of State, Mr. Gerry Weiner. I asked him to seriously consider the budget cuts he was proposing and to not discourage Canadian women from taking their rightful role in government decision making.

The centre has provided a much-needed program for women in the Yukon. It has lived up to, and far exceeded, the expectations the community, as well as the federal government, have provided. For this, they have been penalized.

The cuts to this centre, as well as the cuts to Skookum Jim Friendship Centre, will leave a huge gap in services to those people who cannot afford services these groups can provide to them. Who will fill these needs? No one will, for there is no one else prepared to do this at the price these groups have.

The issue of funding cuts to the Yukon and across Canada have been so important we have seen it on Nedaa on Saturday night. I understand there will be something on Focus North tonight. There will be a phone-in on CHON-FM on March 6 at 1:00 p.m. I understand there will be a rally on March 7, as well as a fundraiser and weiner roast on March 10 at the Ice Palace - which really fits the cause.

The federal government certainly has its priorities mixed up and contradictory. We will remember March 21, 1990, as the year the Yukon has felt the most discrimination from the federal government. The theme the federal government shows for this day, the day to end racial discrimination in Canada, is: “Together We are Better”. Better at what?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I will be brief. I would like to continue a theme I pursued last week with respect to the federal budgetary policy that is being plied in this budget, the announcements made in December with respect to the territorial formula funding, and in response to comments made by federal spokespersons over the course of the last year with respect to what was eligible for cuts and what was not.

Last week, many Members in the Legislature eloquently expressed concern about federal budgetary policy, largely because we were and are concerned about budgets and the federal/northern fiscal arrangements not being fair. We were concerned about the federal deficit, which we indicated on numerous occasions. In saying that, we were also concerned about exactly how that federal deficit should be handled and who should pay, and in what manner.

Last week, I indicated that the Yukon government was more than prepared to pay its share as a contributor to Canadian society.

We were concerned and made the case, I think convincingly, that the cost to northerners, the cost to Yukoners, is much greater proportionally than it is to other Canadians in the country. We mentioned that when taxes are uniformly applied across the country, like the general sales tax, like the telecommunications tax, like the airline ticket tax, high cost of living, regional economies fare worse than do others.

We mentioned that the formula arrangement, which inflicts a per capita cost on Yukoners of over $300, is far worse than the cuts of $116 per person that were levelled in this recent federal budget. We were concerned about the program restraints and the program offloading that the federal government has initiated, which has caused Yukoners to bear a greater proportion of the costs of meeting the federal deficit than other Canadians.

I think what we have taken note of is that this is unfair to northerners in particular, and we have to get the message to all Canadians, and in particular to the federal government, that it is not acceptable. Now we can obviously see that the squeeze is on, not only to northern Canadians, but also to those people who can least afford the cuts.

We have had discussion this afternoon in the Legislature about how the social contract, which is being developed between the federal government and all governments and aboriginal people and the women in our society and others who have not been full and equal partners, has been damaged by recent federal fiscal policies. We have taken note that the initiatives in the last budget pinpoint those people who are at the lowest end of the social contract currently and who need, in the interests of fairness and equality, to be enfranchised - to be empowered, as one Member put it - that is something that cannot come when there are significant and pointed cuts to federal program spending that is meant to support them - cuts to the Department of Indian Affairs, cuts to support for women’s centres, cuts to communications societies that are in particular spokespeople for native people in this country.

There are significant cuts to the Council for Yukon Indians to a magnitude that the federal government would never contemplate inflicting on itself. There are cuts to the aboriginal language program, which this Legislature has taken great stalk in supporting, because aboriginal languages are of particular interest to Yukoners. The cuts to the French language programs were not, thankfully, applied to the same extent.

There are other elements of this budget that, I am sure, we will have an opportunity to discuss in the future. I would like to point out one further area as I realize that so much as been said already. For the fourth consecutive budget in a row, funding cuts to training have been applied. This time it has been done consciously to ensure that the federal program spending is cut for those people who require training to become enfranchised, to express themselves fully in a free society. Funding in this area has once again been unabashedly cut.

I can only express my absolute dismay about this course of events. These cuts will be implemented at the same time that we are hearing the supposed echoes of support for training and education from the mouths of federal spokespeople. This is the long-term tragedy that this country must face. It will take a long and thorough commitment to education and training to ensure that there is fairness and equality in this country.

I support this motion. I urge all Members, at any opportunity, to express to our federal counterparts, that while we have a desire to match revenues with expenditures, to balance budgets, that any exercise in budgetary expenditures or a reduction in expenditures must have the principle of fairness applied.

It must recognize that if there is to be a social contract in this country, which calls everyone equal, the budgetary policies of government must reflect that. All governments must be true to their word in that respect. We must urge the federal government to consider actions such as this, because they are not fair. They ultimately will do great damage to the future of this country.

Mr. Phelps: I would like to thank the Government Leader for bringing the motion forward. I must say that I was a bit surprised that the mover changed because it had been brought forward originally for our consideration on Wednesday by the Member for Whitehorse South Centre.

We are, on this side, in support of the motion. I would like to say that I am very pleased and proud that we, on this side, speak out against federal policies, no matter which party is in power at the time, when federal policies, in our view, discriminate against Yukoners or northerners, or when we feel that the policies are not acceptable in principle or are simply seen as unfair. In the past, we have spoken out clearly and strongly and adamantly against such policies as the Meech Lake Accord, the GST, the tax on communications and the list goes on.

I listened with interest to the Government Leader, particularly to what he had to say about the organizations that are affected so greatly by the cuts. We, on this side, agree with those on the opposite side with regard to the value of the work being done on behalf of Yukoners and behalf of all cultures here, on behalf of the desire to achieve equality and gender equality as well.

We agree that the work done on behalf of Yukoners in the past has been, to quote him, “These organizations have helped change the territory for the better.” I was dismayed when I first heard about the 100 percent cuts being made. They appear to be, and are in fact, severe and callous. We agree that these cuts will have a prejudicial effect on northerners and we agree that the government should re-examine its budgetary policies, with a view toward eliminating the prejudicial effect on northerners.

I do not wish to get in to a long and philosophical debate about where cuts might be increased to make up for restoring at least the major part of the core funding for these organizations. There is no question that we do disagree, in principle, with some of the suggestions offered from the other side with regard to where and how such cuts ought to be effected.

As this is a motion that calls for unanimity with regard to supporting it, as we anticipate, and indeed expect, that this motion and the debates on the motion will be forwarded to the federal government, and in particular to the Minister of Finance, I will keep my remarks brief.

Suffice it to say that, on principle, we fully support the motion as it is worded and we would certainly hope that it is not too late for some changes - substantial changes - to be made with regard to the cuts that affect these organizations. We are concerned about the rather devastating impact the cuts will have on those Yukoners who rely on the services provided by these organizations, and particularly the impact it will have on some of the people who really have come to rely on these organizations in their day-to-day lives.

Motion agreed to

Speaker’s Ruling

Speaker: Order please. I would like to inform the House that Motion No. 79, standing in the name of the Member for Whitehorse South Centre, will be removed from the Order Paper as it is very similar in intent and subject matter to Motion No. 80, which was debated and decided on by the House this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House now 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 now resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair: The Committee of the Whole will now come to order. We will take a 15 minute recess.

Recess

Chair: I will call Committee to order. We will begin the Department of Renewable Resources.

Bill No. 19 - First Appropriation Act, 1990-91 - continued

Department of Renewable Resources

Hon. Mr. Webster: I am pleased to outline the O&M estimates for the Department of Renewable Resources. The estimates call for the department to spend close to $11 million in the next fiscal year. There is a 12 percent increase in spending forecasted for the current year.

With this increase, however, we will be undertaking some major new initiatives. In keeping with this government’s desire for a fair settlement of land claims, we are planning to spend slightly more than $1 million toward fulfilling our commitments under the agreement in principle.

There is $600,000 associated with the implementation of the land claims agreement. Specifically, this will be used to establish local, renewable resource councils called for in the agreement in principle. All we are projecting to spend on the pre-implementation is $600,000 in these estimates.

Please note however, that as pre-implementation may take as long as three years, not all this money will be spent in the next fiscal year. Consequently, the unexpended funds will be carried forward into subsequent years.

The estimates contain $25,000 to cover this government’s initial contribution to the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Trust Fund. Hon. Members will recall that the agreement in principle provides for this fund, which will make a valuable contribution to conserving and enhancing fish and wildlife populations in the territory. Each party to the land claims negotiations will be contributing an equal share to the $3 million fund.

The remaining $200,000 in the estimates is for strategic planning. It will be used for the detailed analytical work needed to complete band-by-band negotiations. This will include detailed negotiations on the renewable resource aspects of the 13 agreements that will make up the umbrella final agreement.

Increased work on land claims in the coming fiscal year will be met through the addition of two person years to the department. These are three-year term positions.

Another major commitment of this government is the protection of the Yukon’s environment, a resource important to the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of Yukoners.

During the next fiscal year, we plan to make substantial progress developing the territory’s first environmental protection act and regulations and establishing an environmental protection program comparable to those found in the provinces.

This budget reflects this commitment with the increased resources proposed to the department’s environmental protection unit. Two new staff will be hired to work with the environmental protection coordinator to develop and implement a comprehensive program for protecting the Yukon’s environment.

This program will provide for the licensing, inspecting and enforcing of environmental regulations on herbicides and pesticides, waste management and disposal and the use of toxic chemicals. During the next fiscal year, this government, in cooperation with the Council for Yukon Indians and the federal government, will begin work on land use planning for the northern Yukon.

There will be $459,000 included in the O&M estimates for initial research and data collection for our north Yukon plan as well as the land use plan for the Kluane region.

These funds are totally recoverable from the federal government.

Before concluding my remarks on new initiatives for the 1990-91 fiscal year, I want to point out the funding proposed for the deputy conservation officer program. I know hon. Members opposite have been interested in reactivating the auxiliary conservation program offered a few years ago. I believe that this new program will meet with their approval. It includes several improvements over the previous program. There is $11,000 available in the estimates to establish the new program.

In terms of ongoing programs, we are proposing to increase the funding available for trapper education to $38,000 in the next fiscal year. The $16,000 increase in this year’s spending will provide for greater emphasis on humane trapping. We will also continue to provide assistance to community and non-profit groups that want to undertake projects that demonstrate the conservation of our resources.

There will be $50,000 available for projects funded under the fish initiatives for sustainable harvest, the FISH fund; $100,000 for projects under the Yukon conservation strategy demonstration project fund. In addition, $10,000 is proposed for a demonstration project that my department is involved in with Curragh Resources. Curragh is expanding its mining operation by developing two open-pit mines on the Vangorda Plateau. The area that is being developed is located within the route that the local fannin sheep herd uses for migrating from their winter range to their summer range on Mount Mye.

Funding will allow us to take certain measures to mitigate the potentially harmful effects of the Curragh expansion to protect the sheep herd. This project is an excellent example of how the public and private sectors can work together to develop our economy by protecting the wildlife population important to the people of Faro and the Yukon.

I have highlighted my department’s new initiatives and some of its ongoing programs. I would also like to outline the capital initiatives proposed for the Department of Renewable Resources, particularly those that are new this year.

I spoke about the department’s O&M estimates. I pointed out our commitments toward protecting the Yukon’s environment. The capital estimates before the House also reflect this commitment. The Yukon is involved in developing the Yukon conservation strategy. I have stressed the importance of education and changing our attitudes about the environment and how we treat it.

We have recognized this need in these estimates, and we are proposing to spend $30,000 for public education on environmental protection.

This funding will be used to design and implement an education program on the issues and alternatives involved in conserving the Yukon’s resources and protecting its environment.

As I have mentioned, this initiative is consistent with the development of the Yukon conservation strategy, as well as with our efforts to prepare the territory’s first comprehensive environmental protection act.

Through these capital estimates, the department is also proposing to take other steps to conserve and protect resources important to the territory and its people. There is $30,000 included to develop a management plan for the Thirty Mile section of the Yukon River.

This management plan is necessary for Thirty Mile to be accepted as a Canadian Heritage River. I am sure honourable Members appreciate that such a designation will give national recognition to the recreational, historic and cultural significance of this river corridor.

We are also planning to take a significant step toward establishing the territory’s first ecological nature preserve under the Parks Act. There is $35,000 contained in the estimates for a legal survey of the Cold River Springs. This survey will facilitate the block land transfer from the federal government for the ecological nature preserve. The cost of this survey will be recovered from the Nature Conservancy of Canada, which is working with the government on this project.

The government is also proposing to continue efforts to protect the Yukon’s first territorial park on Herschel Island. These estimates contain $309,000 for joint work with the heritage branch of the Department of Tourism. The funding will allow my department, in consultation with the Inuvialuit, to complete work on a plan to properly manage the park and protect its resources. The heritage branch will be continuing work on stabilizing and restoring historic buildings on the island. As honourable Members are aware, this expenditure is fully recoverable under the Inuvialuit final agreement.

In the area of agriculture, we plan to spend $95,000 to complete studies on determining the forage productivity and carrying capacity of Yukon grazing lands. This work will help ensure conservation and wise use of the Yukon’s range land. It will reduce the risk of overgrazing and desertification of our native ranges. It also supports our efforts to build a self-sufficient, economically viable agriculture industry in the Yukon.

In 1990-91, the Department of Renewable Resources plans to continue the trap exchange program offered in past years. This program was set up to help ease the financial burden trappers face in exchanging their current inventory of traps for more humane ones. Through its continuation, the government recognizes a need to provide financial assistance to this important renewable resource industry to offset the threat posed by the anti-fur movement.

As in past years, the department will be carrying out work to keep our campgrounds in good shape for the enjoyment of visitors and residents. This coming year, we are proposing to upgrade the Yukon River campground and the campgrounds at Watson Lake and Johnson Lake. The total cost of this rehabilitative work is estimated at $275,000.

In keeping with the expansion of our self-registration program in territorial campgrounds, we have provided $45,000 in these estimates to construct self-registration booths for several campgrounds.

We also plan to spend $115,000 to replace damaged or obsolete equipment, such as tables, outhouses, garbage cans, wood boxes and signs in several territorial campgrounds and day-use areas.

In preparation for the coming anniversary of the Alaska Highway, we will be concentrating on improving equipment in campgrounds and day-use areas along this highway.

The capital estimates also contain a proposed expenditure of $50,000 for establishing a revolving inventory of prefabricated campground equipment such as picnic tables, fire rings, outhouses and picnic shelters. This will enable us to meet future equipment needs quickly and efficiently.

In total, the capital estimates for the Department of Renewable Resources call for an expenditure of almost $1.1 million in the next fiscal year. This is a decrease of $702,000 from the estimates forecast for 1989-90 and reflects the government’s commitment to sound financial management in the wake of reduced funding under the formula financing agreement.

However, despite the proposed reduction in capital spending, the projects I have outlined for Members will enhance our efforts, conserve our resources and protect our environment.

Mr. Lang: I want to make a couple of overall observations about the department. My comments go to the top management within the department, as well as to the political arm of government. I want to express extreme disappointment. In the opening remarks by the Minister, he never once mentioned the serious problem we are facing in game zones 7 and 9, as well as in other parts of the territory.

In the debate last year, game zone 11 came into question by the Member for Watson Lake: what was happening to the game population in that area. I strongly feel the first mandate the Department of Renewable Resources has is to manage our wildlife. Every time they have a public meeting, all I see the department doing is coming out and recommending more regulations to the sport hunters. I never see the game department coming out and saying, these are steps we are going to take for the purpose of management and to try to enhance and increase the herd populations in the various areas that, in some cases, have been over harvested by sports hunters but, in most cases in good part, they have been over harvested by the large number of predators.

The department is dodging its responsibilities and is not meeting them in this particular area. As a taxpayer and a representative here, it bothers me. Last year, we gave an eight percent increase. This year, it is a 12 percent increase. That is 20 percent in two years. The only thing the game department has come forward with is more regulations to be enforced upon a segment of our population. At the same time, the reality of the situation is that one-third of our hunting population is under no regulation at all. Subsequently, the conservation officers are in a real conundrum when trying to enforce these regulations.

At the same time, we do not seem to have any clear political will to say there is a responsibility on behalf of the Department of Renewable Resources to take the necessary management and political decisions, which the Minister is responsible to make, in order to ensure we can try to get these particular game populations up to acceptable levels.

I have already indicated, from this side, that we are more than prepared to support the government in these particular areas. I do not understand why the Minister is shirking his responsibilities. I am led to believe that the game branch or the game board will now set up a subcommittee of some kind to go around and discuss the possibilities of some predator control in game zones 7 and 9. Now, another year has gone by. If we do not take steps within the next month, within the next three weeks, we are going to see a further decrease in our game populations, especially in game zones 7 and 9.

The game department must be very proud of that, if that is what they are going to continue as their policy - to make sure that the residents of Porter Creek East or the residents of Hootalinqua will not be able to hunt and we will make damn sure they are not allowed to hunt. I am here to tell you there are a lot of people who live in the territory because that forms a basis of getting their food for the winter and it also forms a basis of their recreation. All Members in this House represent people who pursue this type of lifestyle; yet we have a game branch, a Department of Renewable Resources, that we are continuing to fund, that we are generously funding I might add - when I take a look at the increases, they are generous increases - and I do not disagree with the increases as long as we are doing the job we are supposed to be doing. I suggest to the Minister that we are not doing the job, we are obviously not doing the job; yet, you go to a public meeting where there are representatives of the game branch - and I take my hats off to these people; these people are civil servants and they are saying, “We are going to have to bring in, for example, in game zone 5 the fact that you cannot hunt with a vehicle on any new roads. This is our proposed new policy.”

My question is why?

I do not have a problem if a herd of animals is being adversely affected with permit hunts or this kind of thing. I fully understand that and I think the general public does, but when I heard the Minister’s opening remarks, he never once referred to game zones 7 and 9, which affect a lot of people in the area.

The Minister is looking disgusted - I am disgusted with the Minister, quite frankly. He has his hands out like this. Maybe it is time he started to assume his responsibilities. On top of that, in the last budget debate, the Member for Riverdale North asked the Minister if he would look into the question of control of birds and work with the Department of Indian Affairs.

There was no mention in the opening presentation about habitat. We could do things with our habitat that would increase the population of the animals in the area. There was no mention of that at all. I guess that maybe it is not politically attractive.

This side is very very concerned about these areas. The Minister of Renewable Resources had better start considering this a priority. It really concerns me when I see this type of presentation being made, and not one mention is made of this being a problem. Yet, we have raised it in every session that we have had in Question Period and in debate on the budget. The Minister continues to turn his back on it. I do not understand why.

He knows he will get support. He knows he will get accolades from this side. If he is prepared to take on the responsibility, he will not get criticism from this side. I can assure him of that. However, he continues to ignore it, and the decision has merely been made that we have a problem in game zones 7 and 9. We many find out next year that the government may start a program. They may.

They may be able to make a political decision because they will have checked with everybody. Then it will probably take us five to 10 years to recover. Every year that goes by is a black mark against the department. The department people know that they have a problem. They are not stupid. These people are paid to be able to deal with it. They have looked around and know what is out there.

Yet, we talk about education programs. They talk about $30,000 for this and $30,000 for that. At the same time, we are ignoring the actual mandate of the Department of Renewable Resources. The recreational sports hunter is getting tired of more regulations being put on them when the Department of Renewable Resources is not doing its part and is not taking its responsibilities seriously.

The Department of Renewable Resources, in the program that they put in place in the Finlayson, was very successful. I do not understand, with the success that we have had, with the obvious political support that the department has from our side, why we are not taking steps in an area that is so vital to the territory.

With game zones 7 and 9 effectively blocked to the Yukon population for hunting, it is no wonder that the government is receiving criticism from the people in Ross River or in Faro who are saying that they are getting a lot of Whitehorse hunters. Has anybody ever told them why Whitehorse hunters are going there? Hunters do not want to travel 200 or 300 miles if they can travel five or 50 miles, with the possibility of success.

Therefore, the government is not only ignoring a very real biological problem in game zones 7 and 9, it is putting more pressure in other areas that will adversely affect the harvest in those areas. The Minister will then say that he has to put through a permit system on that area because of the dirty hunters who were out there.

With the government not confronting the problem and taking steps to alleviate the situation, it is putting so much more pressure on some of the other hunting areas that it is creating bad feelings in some of the smaller communities. I can understand that. And, most important, it will have an effect on the harvest on those populations.

I want to register my serious concern in respect to an issue I hope the Minister is now in a position to speak to, since he forgot to speak to it in his opening remarks.

Hon. Mr. Webster: About eight minutes ago, the Member suggested I was all disgusted and throwing my arms up in the air. It was not a motion of disgust. It was one of exasperation and not being able to speak to all the subjects the Member brought up. Besides the predator control in game zones 7 and 9, he also talked about controlled burns and road closures for hunting purposes in game zone 5, and a number of other subjects. I guess that is the reason I threw up my hands. We will just take one subject at a time. The opening remarks of the Member opposite were dominated to some degree by the possibility of introducing predator controls in game zones 7 and 9.

From the very beginning, I want to make it clear I am not shirking my responsibilities, as the Member has put it. I am not turning my back on the situation. As the Member suggests, I do not find the department is very proud of the fact we are preventing people in his riding of Porter Creek East from hunting. We have brought some measures into play as a first step that have restricted the hunters in those game zones in an effort to bring back game populations. At this time, we should be taking a look to see if the moose populations have rebounded as a result of that action. That is an assumption the Member opposite is making, which is not necessarily true.

Game populations are not decreasing in that area. I do not think you can make a blanket statement like that. We have heard conflicting reports about the availability of game in that area. Many have been that populations are increasing as a result of restricting hunting in that area and only allowing 20 permits.

As the Member knows, and I brought to his attention in the House on January 29, the whole matter of game management related to game zones 7 and 9. The subcommittee of the Wildlife Management Board is concluding its work on this matter. They have met with a number of groups who have an interest in this matter. They will be bringing forth a recommendation to me in the near future. I have already indicated it may be in April of this year. From that, we will outline a course of action.

Mr. Lang: I never heard such a stupid comment in my life. I beg your forgiveness for the terminology I am using. He says the game population is depleting, yet, at the same time, he brings in regulations that allow 20 permits in game zones 7 and 9. Is the Minister telling us that the game population is growing to the point we might get 21 permits next year?

The Minister talks about being exasperated. This side is exasperated, and I am telling you what a lot of people out there are thinking. Do not shoot the messenger. I am conveying to you the underlying feeling of the general public out there. They have no problem in having some restrictions being put on them as hunters but, at the same time, other steps should still be taken. That is their point.

I would like the Minister to do this, then. He is in charge of Renewable Resources and, if the wildlife is a priority as he is indicating it is, would he table for us the moose and caribou populations in those areas for the last four years? The Minister stands in his place and seems to be very confident that everything is fine. We may not even have to do any predator control. But I would like to see that information and have it provided to the general public.

Perhaps, if there has been any aerial reconnaissance, could he also give us an indication of what they feel the grizzly populations in the areas are, as well as the wolf populations, and whether they are increasing in numbers?

Hon. Mr. Webster: The Member asked if we had any proof that big game populations, the moose population in particular, are declining or are on the upswing. No, we do not at this time, but I suggest to him that it is quite possible that, by introducing restrictive hunting measures, the moose population has rebounded in the last two years as a result of that action, and we will know for certain when we conduct our moose survey of that area this winter. Once we have that information, we will have a good idea as to what the moose populations are and then, from that, implement the necessary predator control measures if necessary.

Mr. Lang: Is the Minister telling us that, with the present policy, he is satisfied with it? You could say the game populations are adequate if the position of the Department of Renewable Resources is that all it is going to allow for the next foreseeable future is 20 permits, as far as the moose population is concerned. If that is the position of the department, then we should be told. Is that the position of the department?

Hon. Mr. Webster: No, that is not the position of the department. Its position, at this time, is one of a measured and managed long-term predator control program. It is hoped that that particular strategy will bring the moose populations back up to a level where we can meet the needs of the various users in the territory.

Mr. Lang: I would like to go back for a minute. He said I could not stand in my place and say that the game has been depleted in that area. I will tell you why I make that statement. First of all, I thought the government had a little bit of credibility, and the department in particular, when it brought forward the regulations saying it should be a permit area and that the moose population was in trouble and this further regulation had to be imposed upon the public. I took it that there was a lack of moose for the purposes of harvesting. Now, the department is recommending that there be no permits for caribou hunting. Right? So, we are doing well. There is no depletion of the herd, but we are going to come in and tell you, the hunter, you the terrible person who lives in the Yukon and sees hunting as part of your recreation, you will not be able to hunt in that area because we are managing it so well. But we cannot tell you whether or not the population is depleting. How can the Minister stand in his place and say that? After we vote $9 million or $10 million for that department, the Minister cannot stand in his place and give us a rough idea what the moose population is per square mile?

I can tell you this: first of all, I took at face value what the Minister said when he brought in the regulations for the permits. I also speak to people who do a lot of skidooing in the area. They are very familiar with it and have been skidooing there fo