Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, March 26, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call this House to order, and we will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

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

TRIBUTES

Tribute to Katrina Marie Gonder

Mr. Fentie: This afternoon, I rise and ask all members of this House to join me in paying tribute to a brave young nine-year-old girl from my home town of Watson Lake. This tribute comes almost a year after the event, but I only became aware of the selfless act in the last few weeks.

On the afternoon of June 4th, 1996, Katrina Marie Gonder, aged eight years old at the time, had just become confident enough to be swimming in the deep end of the Watson Lake pool. Katrina noticed a young girl in the deep end with her face in the water, and at first thought she was blowing bubbles in play. But Katrina quickly realized that the little girl was not playing but was indeed in trouble.

Katrina swam over to her to check and found the child unconscious. Katrina grabbed onto the little girl and, although it was very difficult to swim with the child in tow, she held onto her until they reached the shallow end, where the lifeguard took charge.

Thanks to Katrina's courageous act, the little girl was revived by the doctor called to the scene, and is suffering no ill effects from her experience.

There is another reason why I am giving this tribute this afternoon. I am very pleased to introduce the members of this House to Katrina Marie Gonder who is sitting in the visitors gallery today with her parents, Leslie and Allen Gonder.

Sadly, Katrina is on her way outside for treatment of a brain tumor. I know all the members of this House want to join me in wishing Katrina and her family well during this difficult time. Katrina, I want you to know how proud we all are of the very brave thing you did and I know that the courage you showed in saving that little girl's life will help you in your fight to get well again. Thank you.

Applause

Mr. Phillips: We, on this side as well, would like to welcome Katrina to the House, and her parents. We want to pay tribute to this very special, courageous, young lady. Katrina, our hopes and prayers travel with you and may God speed your recovery. We will all be thinking about you in our prayers and I know that you will do well. Thank you.

Applause

Ms. Duncan: I would also like to rise in tribute to Katrina Gonder and to welcome her and Mr. and Mrs. Gonder to this House. Katrina, her mother Leslie, my colleague Sue Edelman and I are all sisters. We are part of the great sisterhood of guiding. I have served as Yukon's provincial commissioner. Sue is an active member of Yukon Council. Leslie has served as a leader and Katrina has been a Brownie.

Although we may not all be actively involved in the great game of guiding at this time, the values and strength of guiding are part of us. It is an organization whose aim it is to help girls and young women to become responsible citizens, able to give leadership and service to the community, whether local, national or global.

Katrina has demonstrated her leadership in caring for others with her true act of bravery. She has demonstrated the values that Girl Guides has helped to foster.

The guiding organization is also the largest women's organization in the world. By our membership, we find friendship, sisterhood and support for one another and from one another. In the difficult times ahead, Katrina and Leslie will know that the hearts and prayers of their guiding sisters are with them.

Applause

In Remembrance of Jack Allen

Mr. McRobb: I rise today to pay tribute to the late Jack Allen of Haines Junction, a respected elder of the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation.

Jack Allen was born in 1903 in the Hutshi area. He lived a traditional lifestyle and spent most of his 94 years hunting, trapping and fishing. Jack was an excellent horse trainer and rider, and gained a reputation for riding any wild horse he was dared to ride.

Jack provided for his family in a traditional and contemporary way. He hunted and trapped extensively in the Aishihik area.

During construction of the Aishihik road and airport, he worked for the army barging equipment and supplies up the 60-kilometre long Aishihik Lake.

Jack is survived by his wife, Bessie, sister Jessie Jonathan, daughters Lorraine, Rosalie and Virginia, sons Percy and James, 17 grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren. Jack Allen will be sadly missed by all those who knew him.

Speaker: The introduction of visitors, I believe.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to welcome a rather adventurous group of tourists, the first off the mark this year. We have with us today a number of folks from the elder hostel program. We have 23 of them from the United States joining us. They will be trying to puzzle out our quaint parliamentary system. We have seven folks from Ontario, and we have four of our guests from British Columbia. The elder hostel program has a number of trips to the territory each year. I would like to welcome our first group. Welcome to the House today.

Applause

Speaker:

Are there other introductions of visitors?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Speaker: Under tabling of returns or documents, I have for tabling three reports from the Chief Electoral Officer. They are the report on contributions to registered political parties during 1996, the report on contributions to candidates during the last general election, and a report made pursuant to section 335 of the Elections Act.

I also have for tabling a report from the Clerk of the Assembly made pursuant to section 39.6 of the Legislative Assembly Act.

Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some documents to table.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

Hon. Mr. Harding: I have for presentation the first report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges.

Speaker: Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT the first report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges presented to the House on March 26, 1997, be concurred in and that the amendments recommended in that report to the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly be adopted.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the recent hiring of senior level officials from British Columbia to fill important public service jobs in land claims and devolution is a direct contradiction of the government's election commitment of hiring Yukoners and makes a complete mockery of the local hire commission, especially in light of the Yukon's high unemployment rate; and

THAT this House urge the Government of Yukon to ask for the immediate resignation of the commissioner for local hire and ensure that Yukoners are given the first opportunity for jobs in the Yukon.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the federal Liberal government to recognize the existence of the "Crown in right of Yukon" and to amend the Yukon Act to legally enshrine this recognition;

THAT the ownership and control of "Crown land" in Yukon be transferred to the "Crown in right of Yukon" by June 13, 1998.

THAT the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory be recognized as a representative of her Majesty the Queen and as the Lieutenant Governor of the Yukon; and

THAT the Crown Attorney's office be transferred to the Government of the Yukon.

Speaker: Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Youth Empowerment and Success organization offers worthy programs to youth at risk having served over 400 young people since its inception; and

THAT this House urges the Government of the Yukon to cancel all of its commissions and transfer some of the funds from the commissions to YES so it may continue to deliver programs to our youth at risk, in light of its election commitment to help high-risk children and provide financial stability to non-government organizations.

Speaker: Are there further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House recognizes that the previous Yukon Party government introduced and implemented a whole range of initiatives to deal with issues such as family violence, youth crime, property-related crime and offender management; and

THAT this House urges the Government of the Yukon to continue to address the problems of crime and vandalism in our Yukon communities and expand upon the work already completed by the previous Yukon government to include initiatives to help Yukon youth at risk.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that testing in schools not only evaluates the level of learning attained by the individual student, but it also demonstrates the effectiveness of teaching methods and the overall education system; and

THAT this House urges the Government of the Yukon to maintain standardized testing in Yukon schools and strive for excellence in Yukon's education system by expanding the Yukon Excellence Awards to include significant achievers.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the National Child Benefit Program does not go far enough to address the problem of poverty among low-income families; and

THAT this House urges the Government of the Yukon not to use its participation in the National Child Benefit Program as an excuse not to implement a Yukon child tax credit that will apply to all Yukon families, especially those families with lower incomes.

Speaker: Any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House urges the Government of the Yukon to deal immediately with the staff and inmate health and safety concerns relating to the Whitehorse Correctional Centre raised in the Barr Ryder Condition Survey report of January 31, 1995.

Speaker: Are there further notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Anvil Range Mine: government report on

Hon. Mr. Harding: I rise to update the House on what the government is doing with respect to the situation with the Anvil Range mining operation in Faro.

As members are aware, Anvil Range has announced a layoff of 130 mill employees as of March 31st. This will mean the full shutdown of the Faro mine for the time being. As the MLA for Faro and the Minister of Economic Development, I am fully aware of the impact this shutdown has on Yukon people and the territory's economy.

Since the company announced a partial shutdown last November, the unemployment rate has risen to 15.4 percent and is expected to increase after the March 31st shutdown. This is obviously of grave concern to our government and we are responding on a number of different fronts to address the situation as the budget tabled this week demonstrates.

It is this government's policy to respond to community needs in a timely and coordinated fashion when unforeseen circumstances arise, such as this or the school fire in Old Crow. As members are aware, when Anvil Range announced the partial shutdown in November, we reacted immediately by setting up a working group to meet the needs of the community. As a result of these efforts, additional recreational activities, counselling services and educational opportunities have been available in Faro this winter.

In addition, the industrial adjustment services office was established in cooperation with Human Resource Development Canada. A government contact person was located in Faro to respond quickly to people's needs.

When the Curragh mine shut down in 1993, one of the biggest problems faced by the mine workers and their families was that the company did not honour its commitments respecting employee wages and benefits. This year, the situation is different. The current mine owner, Anvil Range Mining Corporation, has indicated through trust documents its intention of honouring its legal obligations to its employees during the mine closure. As part of that commitment, the company is paying out an amount of $434,000 tomorrow to cover vacation pay and other benefits for workers who were laid off December 20th.

At this time, the company has completed its mine plan, is paying out its creditors, including the banks, and is actively searching for financing. As recent media reports have indicated, Mr. Speaker, Anvil Range has approached the Yukon government with a request for assistance in certain areas, but it has not asked for direct financial assistance that would immediately lead to a reopening of the mine.

Our government believes that a private sector solution is preferable to direct government assistance. Anvil Range Mining Corporation has the financial backing of both the Hyundai Corporation and Cominco, two companies with much deeper pockets than the Yukon government. While we are continuing to meet with the company about possible avenues of assistance, we are aware of the need to protect the interest of all Yukon people. Our next step is to conduct a detailed independent due diligence analysis of the mining operations. This will be done through a professional consultant in conjunction with Anvil Range, YTG and the federal government.

In order to protect the electrical ratepayers, Yukon Energy Corporation recently placed a miners' lien on the company. Anvil Range has indicated that it intends to pay its electrical bills and will meet with YEC officials to discuss the terms of payment.

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest requirements of a mine operation is access to a skilled work force. Discussions are under way with the company and the union about the possible creation of a training trust fund related specifically to the Faro mine. This is consistent with our government's commitment to jobs and training in the 1997-98 budget. That budget set aside a minimum of $300,000 for a mine training trust fund as part of a $1 million overall commitment to training trust funds.

This budget also calls for $88 million worth of capital spending, the development of a trade and investment diversification strategy, a $2 million community development fund, and a community projects initiative program. All of these things confirm our commitment to jobs and training for Yukon people.

Mr. Speaker, with the current improvement in zinc prices, I am confident the Anvil Range operation will resume before too long. In fact, I just learned recently that Anvil Range has applied for a permit for a water licence for underground exploration in the Grizzly deposit. I am optimistic about Anvil Range's future and the future for Faro. Our government will continue to work in both the immediate term and the longer term to help bring stability and diversity to the Yukon economy.

Mr. Ostashek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to make an issue of it now, but ministerial statements are supposed to give new information to the Legislature. There is absolutely nothing new in here that I have not seen in the papers or heard in the news media for the last several weeks. This appears to me to be damage control for a budget that bombed when it came to job creation.

The Minister takes the opportunity to go back through the budget again because the media did not pick it up the first time around; 24 hours later, there was no news of the budget in the local media.

We want to see Anvil Range back to work. We want to see it done with private sector funding. When the Minister was on this side of the House, everything that happened in Faro was the government's responsibility. Now, the government has nothing to do with it. They are quite prepared to watch a skilled workforce leave the Yukon because they have not taken any actions in their budget to keep them here. Yet, they turn around and are going to implement a training trust fund for a property that is not even in operation. I just find this mind-boggling. I see no sense of reason in this. I see nothing in here - in this statement, the budget or anything else that has transpired from this government - that is going to give any optimism to Yukoners. It is 15 percent plus that are unemployed now that are hoping to go to work in the Yukon this summer. It is a very sorry document for a ministerial statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cable: Last week, the director of employment standards started an action. He was asking the courts to prohibit Anvil Range from removing its assets until the wages were paid to the employees or adequate security was posted. This action came to a grinding halt last Friday. What we have in its place is a trust document, which, in my view - and the Minister can confirm this - simply says that Anvil Range will do what it is supposed to do under its collective agreement and, according to law, under the Employment Standards Act.

Now, the minister attacked the previous administration without mercy for many, many questions. There were whole volumes of Hansard on his questions about protecting the workers in Faro. So, I would ask the minister to tell us, firstly, why was this action compromised, and secondly, what sort of security do the workers have for their outstanding wages, both under the collective agreement and also under the Employment Standards Act. I do not mean this document that simply states what the facts are. Is there some solid security? If not, why was the action compromised?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, I really welcome the opportunity to respond to the comments of the Opposition with regard to the issues that were outlined in the ministerial statement. First of all, I will say to the Leader of the Official Opposition that the ministerial statement that I read out today is perfectly consistent with the practices of this House in terms of content, in terms of delivery. We deliver our own agenda to legislators in this facility. We deliver our own agenda to the Yukon public through this Legislature, not always through the media. So we make no bones about laying out where we want to go and where we are going with these types of major, important issues to the Yukon taxpayer and to the Yukon public and to the Yukon worker, in this Legislature.

The Leader of the Official Opposition's recollection of history is incorrect, Mr. Speaker. The member seems to be upset that we have only announced in this ministerial statement a training trust fund. We have taken so much action since this shutdown. I do not see people in the galleries like they were last time from Faro responding so negatively to the government's very vindictive and bitter approach to the community of Faro. The reason is because we have taken a very responsible approach to this situation in the community. We came in quickly, we talked on the ground, we dealt with the local people in a very responsible manner. We dealt with their needs for increased counselling, for recreation, for training activities. When the company came to us and said that they would like some assistance - I do not know if the Leader of the Official Opposition is advocating that we should just throw bags of money over here. I know that he did offer a $29 million loan guarantee to Curragh, but we think that we want to take a more conservative approach and take a look at the situation, and clearly indicate to the Yukon public that any action we take would be extremely responsible and in the best interests in the long term for workers in Faro and throughout the rest of the Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the training trust fund is something that was identified by Anvil Range as a concern. They wanted to enhance existing skills for workers in Faro. That is something that we are working on doing with them. We are also taking a look at the other request that they have made, but they have told us unequivocally that nothing we could do right now would lead to an immediate reopening. They are in the process of seeking financing for the operation. They have major backers - Hyundai and Cominco - behind them. Cominco has a $25 million equity stake. This company, I might add, differentiates from Curragh in the fact that they have no debt. Curragh had roughly $200 million or $300 million of debt.

So we believe a private sector solution is imminent to this, but having said that our government is not prepared to dismiss them out of hand. We are going take a responsible and reasoned look at their request.

With regard to the comments of the Leader of the Liberal Party in this Legislature, I would say that I was very vocal about protecting workers' wages in the previous shutdown of Curragh Resources, but I would point out to the Member that this situation is very, very different.

Number one, the company has not been in default. Their first scheduled payment under the Employment Standards Act is tomorrow, and all indications are they are going to pay it. If they don't, it might require some alternative action by employment standards, but I think if they pay tomorrow they certainly show good faith that they said they were going to pay and they pay.

With regard to the letter of the law and the Employment Standards Act, it is clear that the company is not bound to pay out employment standards until 13 weeks after the layoff. What we negotiated and will set up through this trust is that they will pay in to this trust fund two months earlier than required by law to protect the wages of the workers in Faro.

The other situation, as I said before, that's a little bit different here, is that this company is quite solvent, whereas Curragh was looking at $230 million in debt. This company has just received a cash injection of $10 million. Incidentally, that came after the Government Leader and myself met with the people in charge of Cominco and talked to them about the situation, about our willingness and our desire to see the Faro mine operation go back into production and benefit Yukon workers and benefit Yukon businesses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Carcross contaminated site: assessment and proposal for restoration

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I rise today to advise the House that I have signed an order under the Environment Act directing the British Yukon Railway Company and its parent company, the White Pass and Yukon Corporation, to prepare and submit a proposal for a site assessment and a plan of restoration for the Carcross waterfront property.

This order, which was delivered to the company yesterday, follows four months of investigation and research. The investigation determined that the land's contamination resulted from the operation of the railway tie treatment plant on the waterfront site leased by the British Yukon Railway Company.

The order comes in to effect Tuesday, April 1st, 1997, and the company has been directed to prepare and deliver the site assessment and restoration plan to the Yukon government by Friday, April 25th.

By way of background, Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the Carcross waterfront site, which is now owned by the Yukon government, was designated as "contaminated" under the Environment Act on February 7th. My department has been working with the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, the Carcross planning committee and others in the community on the approaches to further assessment and clean up since the contamination was discovered on the waterfront last year.

On March 7th, prior to the issuance of the order, a letter and other information were sent to the White Pass and British Yukon Railway Company, giving notice that the Yukon government believed that the activities by the British Yukon Railway Company caused the contamination.

I want to assure all members, especially the people of Carcross, that the actions of this government will not end with the issuance of this order. We want to ensure that the full extent of the contamination is known and that the site is restored to the standards outlined in the recently adopted contaminated sites regulations as quickly as possible.

The proposal for the site assessment and plan of restoration produced by White Pass will be forwarded to the Carcross waterfront working group for review and comment. We will also be encouraging White Pass to enter into discussions with the community on how to maximize local hire opportunities associated with the cleanup of the site.

Ms. Duncan: There are two immediate points the Liberal caucus would offer for consideration of this House. The contaminated site must be cleaned up and it must be cleaned up quickly. Regardless of any procedural or legal actions, fundamentally, the contaminated site must be cleaned up to the very best of the capability of the technology that's available to us.

The minister has not made it clear when the actual clean-up will take place. Carcross, like all Yukon communities, has a limited tourism window. Clean up of this site must not affect that window of opportunity for Carcross businesses. If one tour bus fails to stop in Carcross this summer because the driver has misinformation about the contaminated site, the effects will be felt deeply by that community. It cannot and it must not happen.

Our two key points, Mr. Minister, are that the contaminated site in Carcross must be cleaned up and it must be cleaned up quickly.

I would remind all members, as the minister did not, that the Yukon government only formally adopted the regulations that allow for the clean-up of contaminated sites on January 1, 1997. This will be viewed as a test case for those regulations. This government has an opportunity to prove their commitment to the clean-up of contaminated sites. This first case will set a precedent. We in the effective Opposition will be watching closely and we will be monitoring the results. We will be the judge.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is the health and well-being of the people in Carcross that has brought us to acting on this as quickly as possible. Since we did get in as government, we passed regulations so that we would be able to deal with this situation. And, since the issuance of the order has been put forth, my department continues to work with the Carcross/Tagish First Nation and the community. They are today in Carcross, looking and discussing the fencing around the site and looking at the current fence that is there - the snow fence - and looking at erections of a more substantial fence around the area that shows surface staining.

They are also looking at ways of controlling the runoff that would be potential to the amount of snow that is there. They are looking at covering the site so that the contaminants are not spread around.

Mr. Speaker, we will be continuing to work with the First Nations, as we have committed to, and working with the community to make sure that this contaminated site is cleaned up as quickly as possible and under the guidelines of the regulations that we put forward.

Speaker: Are there any further statements by ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Unemployment rate

Mr. Ostashek: My question is to the Government Leader on the Yukon's currently high unemployment rate. It is more than 15 percent and more than 2,400 Yukoners out of work. Many of those were looking to this government's first budget to give them some optimism and hope that they would be able to find employment in the Yukon. Unfortunately, they were let down and let down badly.

I would like to ask the Government Leader: does his government not believe that the very high unemployment in the Yukon is a very serious matter?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: We certainly do believe that the unemployment rate in the Yukon is a very serious concern, both to the government and to the community at large.

It is for that reason that we delivered a budget speech and proposed budget estimates that include $88 million worth of buildings, roads and land development, that targeted spending to job creation and such programs such as the CDF and the community projects initiative, that tried to spend more wisely in terms of internal government operations than our predecessors did by spending 25 percent less in those areas, because we wanted more value-added benefit to the territory from expenditures that we make. To get on with new opportunities with the private sector through the trade and investment strategy, we have held discussions, as my colleague has mentioned today, with Anvil Range mine. We have been working with the mining industry, not only participating in trade shows as our predecessors did, but also speaking directly to the federal minister about mine permitting, and have had extensive discussions with industry representatives. We have announced new tourism initiatives in the budget, particularly with respect to marketing initiatives with the airline industry. We have announced some new training initiatives, which I believe are much more extensive than our predecessors had applied.

We have already had discussions with various people, for example the City of Skagway, about port development, because we are very, very much interested in the long-term economic future of this territory and we are very concerned about the economic prospects in the short term. What we cannot do, that our predecessors did, what we cannot do is spend our way out of this trouble. We have to spend more wisely, spend smarter and that's what we are doing.

Mr. Ostashek: I am sure that will give great comfort to heavy-equipment operators living in my riding who are looking for a job this summer. I am sure that he is going to feel very, very comforted by that.

What we basically have is a government that has no ideas, doesn't know how to deal with high unemployment in the Yukon, doesn't have any ideas, no creativity, nothing new. Everything he spoke of has been included in every other budget in the territory, and much larger capital budgets.

This government's responsibility was to direct some money to put people to work this summer in the interim while these long-range things continue to unfold to make a better economy in the Yukon. What this government has done, which no other government in Canada is doing today, is increasing operation spending and decreasing capital spending. Why is this government concentrating on bigger government and less capital?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would first of all like to point out to the member as gently as I can that the road funding projects that he took advantage of while he was in government were all negotiated by the New Democratic government in 1991-92. There were no attempts made by the previous government under his administration to renegotiate an arrangement to see an extension of the Shakwak program. So, the member, with his lack of foresight, has left us in the lurch. We are trying to pick up the pieces and we are doing the best we can.

With respect to the operation and maintenance spending, I would point out to the member that the operation and maintenance spending that we are projecting in this budget estimate is, in fact, slightly lower when one discounts devolution and slightly lower than the operation and maintenance spending that he himself engineered through this Legislature for the Yukon Party government in the last year of operations. I would point out that it is not only lower, but it also has to account for some very significant new O&M costs that were bequeathed to us by the previous government.

I would just point out that the new tax bill for municipal buildings - thanks to some of the buildings that the previous government built - is $700,000 that we have also had to eat in the operation and maintenance estimates. So, we are doing the best we can. We recognize the need to provide for jobs through the capital budget, but I don't think the member is being fair at all, and perhaps purposely so, in assessing the spending estimates, the very wise and creative spending estimates, in this particular budget.

Mr. Ostashek: What the Government Leader is saying is simply not true. We worked hard to get a new agreement negotiated for Shakwak so that this one would not lapse before a new one was in place, and he knows it. For him to stand up and say something different in the House is not right. It's not right.

The fact is this government doesn't know what it's doing. I want to draw to the Government Leader's attention, if he would just put his Finance minister's hat on from his budget speech the other day, in which he, on the revenue side, is estimating that corporate income tax is going to go down by 48 percent, fuel taxes are going to go down by 15 percent, which leads to me to indicate that they're expecting a real slowdown in the economy. Yet, at the same time, he is indicating that personal income taxes are going to go up by 9 percent, some $3 million.

Well, unless you are a graduate of the Glen Clark school of economics, those figures just don't add up. Can the Government Leader shed some light on them?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I'll begin by saying, Mr. Speaker, that first of all, the one thing we can't do, and the one thing we're not doing, and the one thing we cannot, will not, do is that we will not run the kind of annual deficit that our predecessors, the Leader of the Official Opposition, ushered into the Legislature last year. Thirty-five million dollars deficit is not sustainable, so we cannot spend our way out of this problem. We have to do other things to try to account for the need for jobs and to promote economic growth in this territory, but it cannot be through raw government spending, because that was something that the previous government had the opportunity to do, but we do not, because we don't have those kinds of reserves bequeathed to us.

With respect to the tax receipts that we expect from the federal government, the member knows very well that the estimates projected for corporate and personal income tax receipts in this budget are the result of averages from the last three years, calculated by federal Finance, and passed on to this Legislature as being what they calculate to be the personal income tax or corporate income tax receipts. There's been no fudging, unless the member is attacking federal Finance, of these figures by Yukon Department of Finance officials whatsoever. In fact, this whole budget is predicated, on its expenditure side and on its revenue side, on the assumption that even the Faro mine will not be operating, which does expect that there'll be fewer revenues. So we have been very careful to provide cautious estimates on the revenue side.

Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation, management agreement with YECL

Mr. Ostashek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is for the minister responsible for Yukon Energy Corp. As we are all aware, there needs to be a decision made on whether or not a management agreement with YECL is going to be renewed, and that day is fast approaching.

Can the minister tell me if in fact they have reached an agreement with YECL?

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'd like to reply to the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House that the negotiations with Canadian Utilities, Alberta Power have been progressing. Discussions are underway. There is no final deal that has been approved by our Cabinet. The president of the Energy Corporation, as I understand it, has been having discussions with his own board at the Energy Corporation to discuss aspects of the arrangement. I'm well aware of the March 31st deadline, and I'm cognizant that we should be able to make some announcements in the near future about where the status of that arrangement is going.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, when we were negotiating the new agreement prior to the election, we always maintained that we would not dispose of any of YEC's assets to reach an agreement, although the Opposition, who are now government, continually accused us of that. In fact, I will table papers that they even put out to that effect, that assets of YEC should remain in Yukon control and should not be sold off to southern interests. I would ask the minister today if he can assure this House that there will be no assets sold in reaching agreement with southern-based Alberta Power.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the member opposite that there is a board for the Energy Corporation that is having discussions with the president of the Energy Corporation about issues that the member refers to. There are still discussions under way with Alberta Power. I think it would be far too preliminary for me to stand up in this Legislature and to speculate on what the negotiated deal - if there will be one - will ultimately be.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't asking the minister what the agreement was. I was asking for his assurance that he was not going to change his position now that he is in government, where when he was in Opposition, he said that none of the assets of the corporation should be sold. I was asking him to assure this House that he was not changing his position. At the same time, while he is on his feet, I would like to ask him if he is aware that if there were to be the sale of any of the assets of the corporation, that there has to be full consultation with Yukon First Nations subject to the umbrella final agreement.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First and foremost, this government always makes sure that it lives up to its obligations in the umbrella final agreement. It is a pity that the previous government could not make that commitment to First Nations, but we will with this government. We have been repairing a lot of relations that were badly, badly damaged over the last four years in that regard.

I am not going to speak for the board of directors for the Yukon Energy Corporation. We will base our decisions on the basis of the best interests of Yukon ratepayers and Yukon taxpayers with regard to any negotiated deal with Alberta Power or Canadian Utilities.

Question re: Anvil Range Mining Corporation, government assistance

Mr. Cable: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions for the minister responsible for Economic Development on Faro.

The minister was asked last week on his position with respect to a bail-out of Anvil Range Mining Corporation. He was reported as saying - this was last Wednesday I believe it was - that if the company doesn't resume production in the next two months then the government may have to step in. Then the next day he must have done a big "Whoops" after he said that, because the next day he did - it wasn't a 180, but it was about a 150 - and he said there was no plan to bail out Anvil Range. Then yesterday he was quoted as saying that the $5 million contingency fund may be used to help the Faro mine. Then of course today we got some further obtuse comments.

Would the minister give this House and the Yukon public a clear statement on his government's intentions? Is a bail-out one of the options that this government is seriously considering?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at the confrontational tone of questioning of the Liberal Party. It said that they were going to bring a gentlemanly attitude to this Legislature, that they were going to conduct themselves with a lot of decorum, they are going to work with the government. But, it is obvious that they are interested in a lot of confrontation.

Mr. Speaker, I gave an answer to media queries. I gave the same quotes - what has been attributed to me here is not a quote, it is a paraphrasing of some of the local media. One headline in one paper said, "Anvil Range Bail-Out" the next paper said, "No Anvil Range Bail-Out" and the quotes that I gave were consistent to both reporters.

What we said is that we will not dismiss requests from Anvil Range out of hand, nor will we say yes to requests from Anvil Range out of hand. We are going to take a reasoned, responsible attitude and a reasoned, responsible approach to any decisions we make, and I think that we have to be mindful not only of the unemployment rate, which has been dramatically impacted by the closure of the Faro mine, but also of the interests of the Yukon taxpayer in general - all Yukon taxpayers.

That is the type of approach we will take and I would ask the Liberal Member of this House to not be so confrontational, to want to work with us. We will seek his opinion on these issues and we ask him to join us in trying to better the interests of Yukoners.

Mr. Cable: I am almost embarrassed to ask the next question, but just bear with me, if you will.

Now, the backers of Anvil Range are two multi-billion dollar, multinationals - Hyundai and Cominco - and I have a statement here which indicates Comino had sales last year, or 1995, of $1.5 billion, and they had consolidated earnings of half a billion and net earnings in 1995 of $100 million. And I am sure Hyundai would be in the same league. I believe Hyundai is even larger.

Now these two corporations could guarantee any borrowings that Anvil Range would ever require. How can this minister possibly suggest that his cash-strapped government would advance money to two rich corporations that don't need it - they would even consider it - when this money could be used for job creation elsewhere?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member opposite that, as I said in answer to the first question, we are not going to dismiss or say yes to things out of hand. We are not in a position to bail out, as the member has referred to, Anvil Range Mining Corporation.

The member is quite right about the size of Hyundai Corporation and Cominco and that their pockets are much deeper than the Yukon government's, and I have pointed that out to the local media and to the public of the Yukon on many occasions in all the correspondence, including the ministerial statement that I made today.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is very, very preliminary right now to speculate on the actions of this government. All I can say is that we are very, very cautious. We believe that Hyundai Corporation, who has a $25 million equity investment, has a lot to gain or lose on the fortunes of this mine, and we would think that certainly they are in a much, much better position than the Yukon government to assist. However, as I referred to in the ministerial statement today, we are prepared to look at initiatives like training, which we think is something that is quite appropriate for the government to be involved in with regard to assisting Anvil Range to enhance the skills of the mine workers that they have, so that they can overcome production problems and move into production.

Mr. Cable: David Lewis, if he is dead, would roll over in his grave to hear the modern social democrats think about feeding huge corporations.

One of the very interesting observations and points that were raised by the Government Leader in the discussion of Anvil Range was the participation of workers in the operation of the mine. Has this been followed up?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think, again, the Member is going far too much into speculative territory. We have not begun any extensive negotiations with Anvil Range. It is my sincere hope that they do not take place with regard to a bail-out, as the Member has referred to.

It is our belief that the Hyundai Corporation, Cominco and the board of directors of Anvil Range will be able to find appropriate financing. I just read a release today that they are actively considering doing a share offering for that financing. I am also buoyed by the fact that zinc prices have maintained a fairly steady increase and seem to be hovering there in a quite stable fashion.

Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to do a bail-out for Anvil Range, but what we are prepared to do is invest in Yukon people and Yukon workers in areas such as training, which I outlined in brief today.

That is going to be our approach. We are going to be responsible. We are going to be mindful of the Yukon taxpayer. We are also going to be very mindful of the fact that there are major corporations and banks who have all been paid out who have a lot to gain by the mind reopening in Faro, as well as the Yukon workforce.

Question re: Schools, rural schools facilities study

Ms. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Education.

The rural schools facility study identified four schools that had substantial problems with overall building structures. Yet, when I review the budget document - with the exception of Old Crow school - Mayo, Ross River and Carmacks do not have a dime of Department of Education capital money. Why is the Minister ignoring the rural schools facility study?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I do not believe that the Member's assertion is correct - that we are ignoring the needs of rural schools. I would point out to the Member that there is $20 million in the budget addressing needs that are already ongoing with the grade reorganization problem with renovations to a number of schools in the Whitehorse area. In addition, there is $500,000 for beginning design work to rebuild the school in Old Crow. There is also $500,000 in the budget for design work for other rural schools.

As the Member indicated, there are five rural schools in need of either major upgrading or reconstruction. We have scheduled a meeting of school council chairs for next month to sit down and talk with communities about how that work will proceed, and it is something that is a priority of our government.

Ms. Duncan: I note the minister mentioned money for Whitehorse schools, and F.H. Collins would appear to be the focal point for Whitehorse capital money.

I refer you to another Whitehorse school mentioned in the Whitehorse school facility report, the Poon Gardner report. "Children are not able to engage in many art projects. The library cannot accommodate an entire class. The health room does not exist. Sick children wait in the classroom or the staff room. Public, staff and students share the same washroom. This school is considered substandard, small and inadequate." This school is Grey Mountain Primary. There are 20 percent of the primary school-aged children in Riverdale whose first exposure to education is this facility, and this government's uncaring attitude about their school.

Will the minister state clearly, for the record, her intentions with respect to Grey Mountain Primary School?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, first I need to correct a couple of comments in the member's preamble. While there is considerable money in the education budget for upgrading at F.H. Collins, the main focus of the capital budget in Whitehorse is Porter Creek Junior Secondary School. There are $20 million in Yukon Party commitments that have to be cleared first before we can go on with big capital expenditures in Whitehorse and in rural communities. It's impossible for a government to address all needs at once.

In regard to Grey Mountain Primary, I toured Grey Mountain Primary School not too long ago, and there have been a number of renovations undertaken there. The picture is not as bleak as the member paints, and we will continue to address education needs as we're able to.

Ms. Duncan: The picture that was painted was not mine. It was the Poon Gardner report's. Funny that the minister could move the money in Opposition, but she can't in government.

The minister mentions that she's meeting with school councils, and we have a $13 million too small capital expenditure on education. Where is the promised restoration of partnerships in education? What are the minister's priorities for the capital money of this department?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Speaker, the restoring of partnerships in education is an ongoing endeavour on the part of myself as minister, and on the part of the department. I would like to advise the member that I've had a number of meetings both with school councils and with education and community groups. I would also like to inform the member that the comments she was reading from the Poon Gardner report in regards to Grey Mountain Primary have been responded to with a number of renovations and upgrades that have already been completed.

As I've said, we will continue to work with school councils to address the needs as we can.

Question re: Old Crow school, rebuilding

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the same minister, the Minister of Education.

On January the 28th of this year we lost the Old Crow school to fire and the Department of Education, Yukoners and others reacted quickly to help provide temporary space and supplies for the children of Old Crow.

Officials from the Department of Education and the minister herself travelled to Old Crow to give assurances to the people that a new facility would be rebuilt as quickly as possible. In fact, the residents were told by senior education officials that we're hoping to complete the construction within two years. The budget that was tabled on Monday doesn't reflect that commitment.

The minister, on CHON-FM this morning, said that now it is a three-year cycle. I spent a week in Old Crow about 10 days ago and the indication that I got from the people in Old Crow who had been at the meetings with the minister was that there would be some planning money in this budget and that there would be some construction money in this budget, and that the school work would actually start this year.

The Old Crow people are extremely disappointed that no work, other than planning, which will go outside of Old Crow, will be started this year.

I would like to ask the minister why she broke her commitment that she and her department had made that this construction will start on the new school immediately.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the member that I have not broken the commitments that I have made to the community of Old Crow.

I have not heard from the people of Old Crow that they are dissatisfied with the way the department or the government has responded. I think we have responded both quickly and appropriately. There are renovations underway to provide for temporary classroom facilities for the students of Old Crow.

In two meetings that I have held with community leaders, one in Old Crow and one in Whitehorse, we have made it clear that we are going to work with the community on the planning of the school. The scheduling of school construction will depend on the work that is done in the community. They have now named all of the members of their building advisory committee.

It will be a two- or three-year construction cycle. That member, who is a former minister, should know very well that no school can be built in one year. Even if it were right here Whitehorse where there is road access, it would not be possible to rebuild a school in one year.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I'm not asking the minister to build the school in one year, because I know that is not possible, but the commitment that was made by the department is that they would react quickly to put up temporary classrooms and they did that. They are working very quickly to try and put up temporary classrooms.

There is an expectation by the people of Old Crow, by promises made by the minister and people from the department who went to the community, that construction would start this year and that people would be put to work in Old Crow. And with $500,000 in the budget, Mr. Speaker, I know and the minister knows that very few people in Old Crow are going to get to see any of that money. That is going to go to the planners or the designers in Whitehorse - or like the NDP used to use, sometimes outside the territory - that would design their buildings for the future. So very few people in Old Crow are going to see any of that $500,000 and certainly they are not going to start construction this year, and certainly they are not going to move into their school two years from now. It will be three years from now at the earliest because of the way the minister has drafted her budget.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The department has responded quickly to the needs in Old Crow. I would like to point out to the member that we are working in cooperation with the community. The temporary renovations that are underway now are being project managed by the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation. There is money going into the community, and we are working with the First Nation and with the community to ensure that local hire is maximized both in the renovations and in future construction. I would also point out to the member that there is an additional $700,000 in this year's budget for a teacherage, which will be constructed with Yukon Housing Corporation.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister is dodging the question. The question I posed to the minister is that the minister's department and the minister gave a commitment that construction would start on the school this year. All that is going to happen with the money in the budget is planning for the school this year. I already commended the minister on the quick action that the department did in setting up temporary quarters and in working to set up temporary quarters. But, the feeling from Old Crow is that they wanted to only be in those quarters for a couple of years, and they got an indication from the minister that is all it would be. This budget says that they are now going to be there three years, and maybe longer before they move into their new school. I am asking the minister today, if they advance the planning, if the planning goes quicker than the minister says, has the minister any plans to bring in a supplementary budget to advance some money for construction, because the construction season is so short, and do they plan to spend more money on the school than is actually in the budget?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, I should point out to the member opposite that the replacement of the school in Old Crow is being approached by working with the community on a consensus basis. We have now in place a building advisory committee. The Old Crow school council and Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and an elder are on that committee, as well as people from the Department of Education and the Department of Government Services. Now that all the people have been named to that committee, it will hold its first meeting on April 3rd. The community has not yet selected a site for the school. It is impossible to begin construction when there is no site selected. The community made it very clear to me that they wanted some good planning to be done, that they wanted to be involved in the planning, that they did not want portables brought in on a quick basis, that they wanted to build the school properly, and we will respond to the schedule as the community identifies their needs. We will work on meeting those needs in a responsible manner.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 13 - debate resumed from December 11, 1996

Clerk: Motion No. 13, standing in the name of Mr. Phillips, amendment moved by the hon. Ms. Moorcroft, adjourned debate, the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Speaker: I will read the motion. It has been moved by the Member for Riverdale North:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the universal licensing and registration associated with the Liberal federal government's Firearms Act, Bill C-68, will be costly and intrusive on property and civil rights, and will have little impact, if any, on reducing the criminal use of guns; and

THAT that this House urges the New Democratic Party government to continue the work of the previous Yukon Party government in opposing Bill C-68 and join Ontario, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Manitoba in the Province of Alberta's constitutional challenge of the new gun control law and opt out of the administration of this law if the challenge fails.

It has been moved, in amendment thereto, by the Hon. Minister of Justice:

THAT Motion No. 13 be amended by:

(1) in the first paragraph, deleting all words after the expression "civil rights" and substituting for them the following:

"and the rights of First Nations people pursuant to their self-government agreements, and is not an effective measure for reducing the criminal use of firearms."

and

(2)

deleting the second paragraph and substituting for it the following:

"that this House commends the Yukon government's position to participate in the Province of Alberta's constitutional challenge of the new gun control law, along with the governments of Ontario, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Manitoba."

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recapping where we were when we left this motion debate on December 11th, and I am pleased to rise and speak to the amendment now before the House.

The gun control bill, the C-68 Firearms Act of the Liberal government, has been one of the most contentious pieces of legislation, both in the Yukon and elsewhere across the country. It is for those reasons that I would like to be very clear about our position on it, and on the subject of universal registration and licensing as well as gun control in general.

We are vehemently opposed to the violent use of firearms and are supportive of any realistic, effective measures to reduce firearms violence. However, the universal registration and licensing provisions in the Firearms Act will not be effective mechanisms to reduce violence. There is no evidence that tougher registration and licensing laws will have any impact on the criminal use of firearms.

We have here in the north respect and safety-consciousness on the part of firearms owners. Although they are widely used, firearms are rarely used in the commitment of crime in the Yukon. There is also a large concern that cultural considerations were virtually ignored in Bill C-68. Firearms in the north are a tool, not a weapon.

The Firearms Act will merely complicate and increase the cost of the use of firearms by safety-conscious firearms owners who need firearms to sustain themselves or to pursue legitimate recreational activities.

Huge expenditures on firearms licensing and registration cannot be justified. It would be much more effective to take the resources that are expected to be consumed by the new firearms program, conservatively estimated at $85 million, and put them into direct programs that have been proven effective in reducing violence against women and children and in other crime prevention measures.

This bill was designed to garner political support for the federal government among southern urban Canadians who have little, if any, appreciation for the realities of life in the north. It is an attempt on the part of the federal government to exploit the fear of crime in urban areas for political gain. It will merely give people in urban areas a false belief that crime involving firearms will be greatly reduced once the act comes into effect.

I would like to speak on the Yukon administration of the Firearms Act. The Yukon government will only be required to administer Bill C-68 if the court challenge fails. We expect to win the court challenge and we therefore do not expect that we will be administering the Bill C-68 regime. However, it would be irresponsible to not consider the implications for the Yukon of the court challenge not succeeding. If the Firearms Act is eventually proclaimed into law, the Yukon government will do whatever is best for Yukoners, regardless of our personal feelings on the Firearms Act.

Opting out of the firearms administration would have little effect on the application of the law to Yukoners. Yukoners would still have to comply with the law; it would simply be administered by a federal agency, rather than the Yukon government. If we did opt out, the federal government would assign that firearms program to the RCMP. We believe that it is better to have police officers out doing police work, rather than doing firearms administration. This is a job better left to officials in the justice department. Since the RCMP is 70 percent funded by the Yukon government, we would only be hurting ourselves if the firearm program were transferred to the RCMP. We would likely end up paying for a portion of it.

By administering the program, the Yukon government is in a better position to hold the federal government accountable to its commitment to cover the full costs of the program. The federal government reimburses the Yukon for 100 percent of the costs of the existing firearms program. We will accept nothing less under the Bill C-68 regime. By administering the program, the Yukon has a voice at the table as implementation discussions are carried out. Yukon's circumstances and issues can be raised and discussed. If we do not participate, there will be no Yukon input into how implementation will actually be carried out.

The national policies established pursuant to the Firearms Act, which will establish how, in practical terms, the legislation will be interpreted and applied, will be developed through interjurisdictional meetings. It has been a benefit to the Yukon that we have had a seat at these meetings and that our officials have been there to participate with other jurisdictions in them. We have learned from experience that we cannot rely on Ottawa and southern jurisdictions to make policies that are relevant to the north.

To opt out would be a step back to colonial Yukon, when the federal government conducted our affairs and we had little influence over numerous government programs, which had a direct impact on the lives of Yukoners.

The Yukon government is smaller and more responsive than the monolithic federal system. We are confident that we can provide superior service to the public and minimize the inconvenience that can be created by bureaucratic delays in issuing licences. This is a reality we will have to face if the court challenge fails.

Opting out would mean the loss of federal firearms funding, of closure of the firearms office, and the elimination of two positions in the Department of Justice. This would lead to two layoffs, or it would require new money to be voted to create positions for the affected employees to fill.

I would like to advise members of the House that I have been working with Council of Yukon First Nations in seeking a satisfactory resolution of the difficulties we face with the federal Firearms Act. Earlier this week I met with Grand Chief Shirley Adamson of the Council of Yukon First Nations to discuss matters of mutual interest related to Bill C-68 and to discuss the First Nations' intent in looking at the possibility of their own firearms legislation.

One of the issues we discussed was the possibility that the Yukon justice department will be administering Bill C-68. Grand Chief Adamson recognizes the propriety of the Yukon government continuing to administer the firearms programs, even if YTG and CYFN, as they are, oppose this legislation.

The Council of Yukon First Nations is also looking at establishing its own firearms program, possibly pursuant to their own legislation. This is a matter that CYFN will be pursuing with the federal justice minister.

As a result of our meeting, the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations and myself sent a joint letter to the federal Minister of Justice requesting a meeting with him so that all of our governments can work together towards a firearms control regime that is both relevant to the Yukon and sensitive to Yukoners' needs.

Our government intends to continue working cooperatively with Council of Yukon First Nations on the issue of gun control, as on other issues. As they carry out their discussions, we hoped that we might be able to assist in coming up with a made-in-Yukon solution that can be acceptable to all three orders of governments.

The degree to which this will be possible, given the federal government's intransigence on this issue, remains to be seen. However, I am hopeful that the federal minister will agree to meet with us, will recognize that cooperation between the Yukon governments and Council of Yukon First Nations is a positive step, and will recognize that we do share common concerns about firearm safety and about crime prevention measures.

Both the Council of Yukon First Nations and the Yukon government were clear on our position that we support the responsible use of firearms. We also want to see safety increased in our communities. We recognize that violence is a problem, and we would like to see this addressed through effective legislation and effective crime prevention measures. In addition, there is no difficulty with the provisions of the firearms legislation that provide for mandatory weapons prohibitions for people who have been convicted of violent crimes.

So, I would like to say to the members that we have some optimism over the fact that First Nations and the Yukon government are working cooperatively. We hope that the federal government will be willing to work with us, and we encourage members of the House to support the amendment before us and to support the motion as it will be amended. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 is what I would consider probably one of the worst pieces of legislation that we have seen come out of the Liberal government in Ottawa since they became elected. It is an unfortunate piece of legislation, because I thought the system worked a lot differently than it appears to have worked. You wonder sometimes what you are fighting when you deal with Bill C-68. You wonder why no one is listening. Until you read a quote, and the quote is, "I came to Ottawa with a firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." The individual that said that was Allan Rock, the federal Minister of Justice, in Maclean's magazine, in an article, "Taking Aim on Guns," on April 25, 1994, on page 12.

I think that says it all about Allan Rock's opinion about firearms. He doesn't care about our cultural values; he doesn't care about our lifestyle. He has his own opinion about guns and he is not interested in listening to anyone else's.

That is the frustration that I experienced as the Minister of Justice when I travelled to Ottawa to meet with Allan Rock, to meet with the Senate, to meet with the Members of Parliament in Ottawa and to plead the case for some changes to what we thought was a law that had some good points in it - the increased penalties, the smugglings, some other aspects of it that I thought were positive - but, we felt it was flawed in other parts, like the licensing and registration. We took a responsible approach to this by asking Allan Rock and the Liberal government in Ottawa to consider some changes that would make this law more acceptable to Canadians.

The Minister of Justice today spoke about her meetings with Shirley Adamson, the Grand Chief, and her hopes to meet with Allan Rock, and I will talk about that in a moment.

With respect to the amendment, I am not entirely happy with the amendment, primarily because I don't buy into the arguments that the Justice minister has told us, that it will weaken our position in devolution and responsibility and we are smaller than the other jurisdictions. Generally, I think it weakens our position in the court case, and that it sort of sends a message that we are defeated before we even argue the case.

I think that this is an issue that you have to stand on with strong principles. You have to say that if the federal government wants to administer this law here, as they do other laws here, then they can do it, not us. We won't have our territorial officials going in and out of Yukoners' houses and charging them with firearm-related offences when these are law abiding citizens that maybe just forgot or won't register their firearms - never committed a crime in their life with a firearm, and never will. I think it is an easy way out.

I am not going to belabour the point. I am pleased that they are going to continue with the court case that they are going to work with the other provinces in fighting the legislation - Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan. They are all going to opt out, by the way. Saskatchewan is an NDP jurisdiction and they feel it's important to send a clear message to Ottawa and they're opting out, but we won't.

That aside, I hope that today in this House that we are going to send another message to Allan Rock and the Liberal government.

I know that in the past all three parties have supported motions such as this, condemning Bill C-68, and we've all taken a responsible approach to improving Bill C-68, but I know that there're going to be three individuals in this House that are going to have some difficulty today and feel maybe a little uncomfortable in supporting this motion again, in the light of a federal election that might be happening in the next six months or so and knowing that C-68, at least in the Yukon, will probably be a pretty major issue - and should be a major issue.

Allan Rock wouldn't listen to me. I'm not convinced that Allan Rock's going to listen to Grand Chief Shirley Adamson and our Minister of Justice, either, because I've had several meetings with Allan Rock where he nodded his head and encouraged me and said he agreed with me, and then when I left his office the exact opposite happened - every single time. And it was pretty disappointing.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there is something we can do, though. We can send a message to Allan Rock and the Liberal government. We can send a message through our motion here in the House today, by all of us unanimously condemning the law and his refusal to listen, and we can remind Yukoners out there that in the next federal election they have more power than any of us will have in here. They can vote for any party other than the Liberals, and they will send them a real message.

It's obvious that Allan Rock wasn't prepared to listen then, and he's not prepared to listen now, because his ultimate goal is to remove firearms from every household in this country and only leave them with police officers and soldiers. And that's what this bill is going to do. This bill is targeted at law-abiding hunters, shooters, collectors, and it's not targeted at the criminals.

In fact, the Liberal government in Ottawa is moving in the opposite direction. It is bringing in legislation such as Bill C-68, which will affect law-abiding citizens and, at the same time, it's cut the funding for the port police in the various major ports in this country where, we are told, most of the smuggling of the firearms goes on. Most of the smuggling goes on in the ports.

The port police and the authorities in Vancouver and other major ports throughout this country are pleading with the federal government. They say, "This is contrary to what you say in Bill C-68, that you are going to increase the resources to stop smuggling and so, the first thing you do is decide to reduce the deficit at the expense of the people who will actually stop the smugglers from bringing the firearms into the country."

It is more important to Allan Rock and the Liberals in Ottawa to support the faint hope clause and protect the likes of Clifford Olsen, a mass murderer, Mr. Speaker. He'll protect Clifford Olsen, but he'll go after the law-abiding citizens of the Yukon and dramatically affect their lifestyle and their use of firearms.

I notice my Liberal colleagues over there shaking their heads, Mr. Speaker. Well, they should shake their heads. They should shake their heads at Allan Rock. They should shake their heads and hang their heads at the Liberals in Ottawa, who are ramming this legislation down our throats.

It'll be interesting to see if they come to the defence of Mr. Rock or come to the defence of their own constituents who disagree with Bill C-68.

I wanted to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, a couple of things. I think people should understand what Bill C-68 will do and when it'll do it. The federal Liberals plan to make it as difficult as possible for you or I to own firearms in the future. They're going to make firearms ownership so complicated and expensive that many regular hunters and shooters are going to be driven away by the paperwork, the high fees and the bureaucratic red tape, while making those who do not comply - the criminals - laugh all the way to the bank on their way to the holdup.

C-68 is not going to be proclaimed until after the next federal election. Many of the aspects don't come into place until after the next federal election, so there still is time to send them a message.

By the year 2001, we all will have to have a firearms licence to keep firearms we now own. You have to pay to get this licence and the government, by regulation, is going to set the fees. Anyone not having this licence will be guilty of a criminal offence. Interesting to note, I think the penalty is five years, and I was just hearing in the CBC news at 7:30 this morning that a person who killed his wife got a four-year prison sentence. It makes you wonder where we are going with our justice system in this country, believe me, when they figure that for not registering a firearm you can get five years and for killing your spouse you get four. No wonder the people are outraged. No wonder the people are fed up with the system, but the federal Liberals cannot see the light.

These new fees can be increased arbitrarily whenever the government wishes. They do not have to go back to the House of Commons. They do not have to go out in the public and ask us if they should increase the fees. We will just get a notification the next time you go in to register and it will cost you more.

All firearms are going to have to be registered by the year 2003. If you do not register, they have made it perfectly clear they intend to charge you. Anyone not registering firearms will be guilty of a criminal offence. On that date, the federal government will have created a whole new class of criminals out of honest citizens, who just happen to be the law-abiding firearms owners of this country. Allan Rock and Jean Chretien know that there will lots of errors in the system, but they do not care. They are going to disarm the country.

I understand that there are going to be some fees. Some of the fees are going to be... I think there is a $25 fee if you sell a rifle. It was described to me by one person. He said, "what does this going to do to the people who live in the bush - First Nation people and others - who might use a little Cooey .22 to hunt muskrats, gophers or whatever ,and they want to sell it?" First they have to have a firearms acquisition certificate, then they have to be licensed and registered - that will probably cost $75 or $100 when the smoke clears - then they have to pay $25 if they sell it. The .22 is not worth much than that nowadays. It will lead to a lot of illegal trade in firearms or people do it under the table. Again, it is making criminals out of these people who want to go rat or gopher hunting. It just doesn't make any sense.

The federal firearms legislation is going to cost a lot more than Allan Rock has suggested. I think his figure was about $85 million - $80 million to $85 million - and the firearms users have estimated somewhere in the $500 million mark - half a billion dollars. The figures that I've heard bandied now - the feds are getting up there in the $200 million mark. They realize that no longer is it going to be $80 million; it's going to be around $200 million, and everyone who's doing that, or looking at what they're doing, is saying they are really underestimating it.

There's a lot of costs in there that the Minister of Justice says we can bill for. We implement it on their behalf and we can bill them for it. Well, I think there's a lot of hidden costs with respect to C-68 that we'll never be able to bill for, and that's when the First Nations person, or the non-native person from Teslin walks into the policeman's office and says, "How does this work? What do I do? How do I register?" And the officer has to take 20 minutes or half an hour out of his time to explain what C-68 is all about. We're not going to be able to bill for that, and while we're doing that, he's not working on the spousal assault case, he's not working on the drunk driving case or a break and enter case that he might have at the time. It's going to take time, and we only have so many people in these small communities to do this work. And you're not going to be able to bill for any of that.

The RCMP are going to be the information centre and the sounding board for every person in the communities, and that's something that we won't be able to bill for.

As well, the Minister of Justice knows that not only does the Yukon have an outstanding bill with the federal government with respect to the existing legislation, but so do other provinces and territories. The feds haven't paid their share of what we've billed them from the existing legislation. So I'm given no comfort whatsoever to think that if we send them a new bill on the new legislation they're going to pay all of it.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that strikes home with many Yukoners. It's an issue that's going to be extremely expensive to implement. The licensing and registration provisions are going to cost millions of dollars. - I think between $200 million and $500 million before the smoke clears. This is coming at the same time - the same time - that the federal government is cutting programs in health and education.

Let's look at a good example - the YES program that was just cut by the federal government here. March 31st the money runs out. No money for YES, but we got several million dollars in the Yukon for a licensing and registration system for people who don't commit crimes. It doesn't make any sense. It's like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing. They don't talk to each other over there. Allan Rock is bound and determined to disarm the country, and he doesn't give a hoot what it costs. But we have an opportunity. We have a golden opportunity as Yukoners. And that's going to come up in the next six months when the federal Liberal government - Mr. Chretien and Mr. Rock - call an election. And I think it's time. We've tried to get into meetings, and the local Liberals locked us out. As Yukoners, we tried to speak out loud and clear about C-68. Allan Rock wouldn't listen to what we had to say. The Liberal senators shut us down in Ottawa. The Liberal Members of Parliament shut us down in the committee hearings in Ottawa. You know what? Yukoners have the last say. Yukoners can shut the Liberals down in the Yukon and send a real strong message to Allan Rock and the Liberal government.

Speaker: Order. I would ask the member to complete his remarks in two minutes.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in wrapping up, I want to give all members a little word of caution. There are lots of people, besides ourselves, who are fighting this legislation. I will give you an example. The wildlife federations of this country are fighting this legislation on behalf of their law-abiding gun owners and hunters and fishermen. The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation started a fund to fight Bill C-68, and they raised a bunch of money from law-abiding gun owners to help fight the case. Do you know what happened? When the federal Liberals passed Bill C-68, and the people said it was unfair and encroaches on individual rights, many of the Saskatchewan people vowed to oppose the Liberals in the next federal election. Last month, the 30,000-member Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation found out that the government thinks the charity should keep their political opinions quiet, and they ordered an audit on the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation. Now isn't that scary? Maybe if we oppose this strongly enough, they'll threaten to cut off some of our formula financing, or money coming from Ottawa, and say, "You guys shut up or you're not going to get anything from us."

It's outrageous that they're acting in this way with a bill that's so fundamentally important to so many people.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage Yukoners to go to the polls in the next federal election and speak loud and clear. Jean Charest said he will throw out C-68. Other parties have said that they will amend or change C-68. So the choice is yours. The Liberals are going to keep it in. The Liberals are going to work hard to make sure that we, as Yukoners, and others will lose the rights to own and use our firearms in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Actually, sorry, the speaking order - I guess I have to go, okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the amendment by my colleague the Minister of Justice. I think it is a responsible amendment. I think it shows a clear commitment on behalf of our government to stand up for Yukoners to the federal government and say that this bill is not appropriate for us as Yukoners, that we feel that there are certain aspects of the bill that make some sense but when engrossed in the mantra of the registration system we are not in favour of this bill. The people in my riding, certainly, they're very active hunters and fishers and enjoy being out in the bush, and feel that, while they are certainly opposed to violence in society and some of the heinous things that happen in our lives and they are supportive of initiatives to deal with that, they obviously do not feel very strongly that the registration system and a lot of the initiatives proposed in Bill C-68 are going to accomplish that task.

I, myself, am very upset with not only the federal Liberals with this bill but the local Liberals who, time and time again, have stonewalled our abilities as a Yukon jurisdiction to raise our concerns and to oppose the C-68 bill.

I heard the Member for Riverdale North speak of the famous meeting organized by local Liberal bag people. They organized. They stood at the door and said that unless you had a Liberal party card you couldn't get in the door. Publicly they say at times that they are not supportive of Bill C-68, but it's clear their actions and their cheerleading of the Chretian government and Allan Rock's actions really show Yukoners that they are on side with this bill, and it's clear that they feel very strongly that it should be part of the Liberal government's agenda. And no doubt the local Liberals will be out there campaigning for the Liberal platform that is going to support and promote Bill C-68, while we poor Yukoners trying to get heard by the federal government are obviously going to have to clamour for that right and continue, as our justice minister has, to try and ensure that we get our voice heard with regard to our concerns.

On the administration issue, I simply don't think its practical to opt out, because I know the federal government and the bullyish tactics of the federal Liberals will ensure that the administration is forced upon us one way or the other, and we'll end up with a situation whereby they're controlling it through some other method and we'll have no input or no control whatsoever, at least to mitigate the impact.

Mr. Speaker, it's possible they may even send the auditors in if we don't agree publicly. So, we are quite worried and we do feel that a responsible action is to concur with the administration of the bill, even if it's reluctantly, so that we can at least get a say on the ground floor. We haven't had a say with the Liberal government so far, but we're hoping that in this respect we'll have some luck. If not, it's going to be foisted upon us anyway, so we feel we are pretty much bound in that respect.

I also believe, fundamentally, as a Democrat, that when the federal government speaks we have our opportunity through political action to try and change that. But, when a law is commenced and is given stature, I believe that there is some obligation upon us to carry out the letter of that law, agree or disagree.

I believe the more appropriate action, rather than not administrating a law of the federal government, is to speak out with political action, as we're doing today, and to try and put pressure on the government who has initiated this action, to try and either modify, change to meet our concerns, or to disband the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that my constituents, the vast majority, have many concerns of which I have iterated to this House on many different occasions with regard to Bill C-68. I'm very, very disappointed with both the local Liberals, as well as the federal Liberals, for their constant cheerleading of this bill. We often hear that they're against it, but their actions and their obvious work they'll be doing in the next little while, the campaign here in the territory for the Liberal party and its pushing of Bill C-68, will be a clear indication to Yukon people that they're all red, whether they're territorial or federal.

Mr. Speaker, further to that, I would also add that I have to support the Minister of Justice's action with regard to the court challenge of the law and also her reluctant and her tacit realization, in order for Yukoners to have any say we may have to reluctantly participate in the administration.

I also reject the argument, with all due respect to the Member from Riverdale North, that it weakens our case. I think it's just simply a point, as Democrats, that we believe we are certainly going to be a participant with the other jurisdictions in the argument as its presented.

But, I'm not a lawyer and the following speaker is, so he may have something to say about that.

I commend the amendment to this House and I think that the course charted by the Minister of Justice is one of exemplary action and I support her and this government fully.

Mr. Cable: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I know there are strange things done under the midnight sun and we have the government - the New Democratic government - whose federal counterparts, anyway, for many, many years have been identified firmly with gun control and who - one of their members, Svend Robinson, chided his colleagues when they voted against Bill C-68. When he was chiding them, he indicated they were abandoning their principles. Here we have the Yukon Party who went through this change-a-name act several years ago because Mulroney was in bad taste. Now they're fighting the next federal election on behalf of the Progressive Conservatives from the floor of the Legislative Assembly. All I'm left to do is address the real issue, of course, which is Bill C-68.

Now, Bill C-68 has many facets. There was an increase in the minimum sentences given for commissions of crime with guns and with weapons. There's, I'm sure, unanimous support in this House for that provision and I have never heard anyone in this territory say, "No, that is not a good idea."

The second facet of Bill C-68 was a new offence relating to cross-border movement of guns. I'd never heard any negative comment on that provision. There's increased prohibition of military assault weapons, giving indication to people that most governments in this country and most Canadians believe that people do not need military assault weapons or AK-47s to live their lives in Canadian society.

Where we have problems is in the registration of long guns, rifles and long shotguns and these give rise to problems that relate to inheritance and problems that relate to rights of entry clauses in the gun bill. These are genuine problems. The Yukon Liberal Party, despite the protestations that I have heard here today, are firmly on the record against these provisions. All of the previous speakers are fully aware that they're perhaps doing a little smoke and mirrors on us.

Just for the record, for those who were asleep in the previous gun bill debate, Yukon's Liberal senator voted against Bill C-68. While many of the Progressive Conservative senators scurried for cover and voted for it, which shows the effect that the previous justice minister had on his trips down to Ottawa. He was very convincing.

He didn't stop the bill.

Now the Yukon Liberal Party Leader has spoken publicly against the registration provisions on many occasions, and I say that again for those that were asleep.

And when Mr. Abel's motion came before the House two or three years ago - a very well thought-out motion - I voted in support of the motion. So the Yukon Liberal Party's position is clear, and to distort that position I think doesn't do justice to this House.

Having said that, most Yukon Liberals think the jury is out on the relationship between the ownership and registration of long guns and rifles and violence against the person. Most Yukon Liberals, including myself and my fellow colleagues, believe that these registration requirements will create a bureaucratic empire, probably considerably more expensive that what we are led to believe. So we have no problem whatsoever in supporting the motion as amended by the now justice minister. And I would agree with the justice minister - and to some extent the previous justice minister. He's pointing frantically at himself. He wants a little credit, and I think the previous justice minister does deserve credit. He started the action - the constitutional challenge - and I think that's very wise.

There's no point in building up a huge bureaucratic empire if we have a bill before us that's constitutionally questioned. And I welcome that constitutional challenge. But if, in fact, the constitutional challenge is unsuccessful, if the Supreme Court does not agree with the applicants, then we are obliged, in my view, to administer the bill. We can give Yukoners the best service if we're not on the sidelines, but if we are actively involved in administering the bill.

So on behalf of myself and, I am sure, my colleagues, I have to indicate that we will support the amendment and we will be supporting the motion as amended if, in fact, the amendment carries.

Mr. Ostashek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to support the motion and the amendment, and want to get on the public record one more time that when we were in government we said that we would continue to fight this very, very undemocratic bill that really infringes on people's rights for no valid reason and will do absolutely nothing to deal with the real issue, and that's keeping the firearms out of the hands of criminals. There is nothing in this bill that would lead me to believe that there will be any impact on the number of weapons that criminals have or are able to acquire.

I am certain that somebody who wants to rob a bank doesn't first go and get a firearms permit, buy a firearm, and then go and rob the bank. I am sure that, after this bill is through, they will not have any more difficulty getting a firearm than they do now, because they do not need to go through the legal system to acquire firearms.

So, as my colleagues have all spoken before me, all this does is create a huge bureaucracy that is going to be very, very costly to administrate and will have relatively little, if any, effect on the level of crime in our country.

We all would like to see violence curtailed and live in harmony, but bills such as this one are not going to do anything to help us get there. But, I do believe that we could even strengthen this motion. In saying that, I would just like to propose a friendly amendment to the motion:

THAT Motion No. 13 be amended by adding, after the first paragraph, the following:

"that this House urges the Liberal federal government to cancel the costly registration system and to utilize the savings to combat alcohol and drug abuse and violence against women."

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: The amendment that has been moved is out of order at this time because, in fact, it is an amendment to an amendment. This amendment is entitled "An Amendment to Motion No. 13". We must first deal with the amendment that is on the Order Paper.

Question has been called on the amendment.

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

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

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agreed.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agreed.

Mr. McRobb: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agreed.

Mr. Fentie: Agreed.

Mr. Hardy: Agreed.

Mr. Ostashek: Agreed.

Mr. Phillips: Agreed.

Mr. Jenkins: Agreed.

Mr. Cable: Agreed.

Ms. Duncan: Agreed.

Mrs. Edelman: Agreed.

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

Speaker: I declare the amendment to the motion carried unanimously.

Amendment to Motion No. 13 agreed to

Speaker: Is there further debate?

Mr. Ostashek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was speaking prior to the vote on the amended motion I apologize for that. I should have realized that I had to wait for the vote on the amendment before I could present another amendment. But I would like to carry through with the amendment so I will move it again.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Ostashek: I move

THAT

Motion No. 13 be further amended by adding after the first paragraph the following:

"that this House urges the Liberal federal government to cancel the costly registration system and to utilize the savings to combat alcohol and drug abuse and violence against women and".

Speaker: The amendment to Motion No. 13 has been moved:

THAT this House urges the Liberal federal government to cancel a costly registration system and to utilize these savings to combat alcohol and drug abuse and violence against women.

Is there further debate?

Mr. Ostashek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've had much debate, not only in this Legislature but across Canada, on the complexities of this bill, the good parts of the bill and the bad parts of the bill. I don't believe that there are very many people in Canada that believe that the registration part of the bill will do anything to combat problems such as violence against women, violence against society and the use of firearms in an illegal manner. And yet that is the portion of the bill that is causing the greatest concern for most Canadians.

We all agree with stricter controls of automatic weapons and those sorts of things. We have no difficulty with that. We agree with harsher penalties for people caught in criminal acts, with the use of firearms to be come down on heavily. But what we can't agree with is a costly system that is not going to be of any benefit to Canadians and a great cost to taxpayers, when, at the same time, we have the Liberal government in Ottawa that is imposing this on Canadians. They are dramatically cutting health and social service spending by downloading to the provinces.

If we look at the record of the Liberal administration in Ottawa, which takes great pride in standing in front of the public and the world at large and bragging about the great job they have done in curtailing their spending, the only thing I can say to the Minister of Finance is that he is very, very fortunate that he had 12 jurisdictions in this country to unload this spending that he was not prepared to make.

That was the only way that he was able to combat his deficit without actually cutting the federal spending by that much. When you look at all the figures, the health and social service transfers to the provinces have been cut by 40 percent, yet overall government spending has been cut less than 10 percent. Even with all the rhetoric and the noise we hear of the thousands and thousands of bureaucrats being laid off, the fact of the matter is that the actual cuts to the federal government are less than 10 percent.

Most of the accomplishments in fighting the deficit - and I agree that we had to get the deficit under control, but I don't agree with the manner that they did it, because most of the money that came from that, almost all of it - was from cuts to transfer payments to the provinces and the territories - some 40 percent - and also by dipping into the employment insurance fund to the tune of some $5 billion a year that has gone to fight the deficit.

And it has gone to fight the deficit. And it's not right. It's not right, Mr. Speaker, and it should not go without legislatures in this country voicing their concerns and doing what they can to force the federal government to deal with things in a more responsible manner.

So, what are we estimating? Eighty million dollars, I think, is the conservative figure for gun registration in this country, up to possibly a half a billion dollars. It would go a long ways to fighting alcohol and drug abuse and violence against women and other such social programs in our country that are sadly lacking of funds, and governments at all levels not having enough financial resources to deal with them - as my colleagues across the aisle are starting to find out: it was a lot easier to sit on this side and criticize than it was to sit over there and try to balance the books. Now they're starting to find out that it's not all that easy. It's not all that easy, and it's a little touchy sometimes, too, I see.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this amendment pass because I believe that the money that is going to be wasted on gun registration - we just don't have those kind of financial resources any more in this country. No country in the world has the money for those kinds of luxuries any more, for setting up these huge bureaucracies. Yet we have a federal government that just laid off 25,000 civil servants, cut out all kinds of other Crown corporations and everything else, and now they're going to start hiring again. Now they're going to start hiring again. They're going to force us to hire to implement this system that they imposed on us.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to give support to this amendment and send a strong message to Ottawa.

Speaker: Are there further speakers on this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I'm not going to speak too long. I'm not particularly a user of firearms. Given my vision, I would probably present a greater threat to the public if I took out a firearm. No one would be safe, but I have lived up here long enough to know, and I have lived in small communities where firearms are indeed a tool. They're part of the northern lifestyle. I have lived in communities where I have seen people use firearms as part of their daily life and I have severe concerns about restrictions on that way of life. In many ways for many of our aboriginal people up here it is a traditional way of life. It's a way of supporting themselves. It's a tool to personal dignity. It's a tool to pursuing a lifestyle that gives people a sense of freedom and personal value, so I have severe concerns about inhibitions on the way of life of people up here by this firearms legislation.

I would like to just echo perhaps some of the concerns of the Leader of the Official Opposition when he talks about where the priorities lie. We do have, as he has said, a federal government that is cutting back and cutting back on a wide front of social programs. We have lost the federal drug strategy. We are losing the tobacco reduction strategy. We are losing New Horizons in Aging and there appears to be, if I interpret it right, some severe restrictions on the CAP C funding.

In the face of these kinds of massive, massive federal off-loading of programs, we are being asked to inherit a federal cost, and I really do have to sort of suggest at this point that we are getting some mixed messages that, on one hand, we are having things off-loaded in terms of cost and responsibilities and, on the other hand, we are having additional responsibilities and additional financial responsibilities off-loaded onto us by this federal bill.

So, I do have some concerns in that regard and I felt I would be remiss if I did not speak to some concerns which have begun to disturb me increasingly in the last few months, and it is something that I hope to bring forward in future weeks in this House. Thank you.

Speaker: Are there further speakers on this amendment?

Mr. Phillips: I'm pleased to rise to speak to the amendment here today and I think it's a wise amendment considering what's happening in the country at the present time.

A couple of years ago, just after I became the Minister of Justice, I attended a conference at the Westmark Hotel on family violence and on violence against women and children.

There were a couple hundred Yukoners that attended that particular conference and I listened to speaker, after speaker, after speaker talk about the issue of family violence and realized how prevalent it is in our society, and I had been somewhat sheltered with it through my life and not having any experience within my own family that I can ever recall. I always kept thinking the figures were distorted, or that it wasn't really happening, or maybe I didn't like to think it was happening. But when you get exposed to a little more, as I did, as the Minister of Justice, it makes you realize that it is a very serious problem out there and that many times the family violence is related to alcohol and drug abuse and it does create enormous disruptions within families and it sometimes can lead to disastrous results such as a murder, or severe beatings of an individual.

Although I don't necessarily support the budget that's been put in front of us, I certainly do support some of the initiatives in respect to the justice department and one is the extra money put into the family violence prevention unit.

I applaud those initiatives, because I know when I talk to individuals over there and I talk to others who are involved, they are a super group of dedicated people who work in a very difficult area and are overtaxed at the best of times. We put enormous resources in there when we were in government by establishing the unit and building on the unit, and I am pleased to see the government has that as a priority as well.

But, wouldn't it be nice, wouldn't it be just wonderful if Allan Rock and the federal Liberal government would take the $500,000 to a million dollars, which was the estimate that we looked at to implement C-68 - $500,000 to a million dollars, just in the Yukon - if Allan Rock had said to us, "Well, where could you use this money?" Well, I'm sure the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice could find good uses for that money. I'm absolutely convinced that if we were given between a half and a million dollars from the federal government directly for those kinds of services, we could put it into crime prevention initiatives in the alcohol and drug area, or in the violence against women area, we could get some concrete results.

I'm pleased to see that the Opposition House Leader has brought this amendment forward, because it is important. It's not only important to identify these areas as areas of high priority but it's also important to express our concerns as members of the legislatures on what direction the federal government appears to be taking in these areas - the "downloading", as it has been called. The federal government prefers to describe it as reducing the cost of government, but it's not really reducing the cost of government. It's removing the cost to another jurisdiction, and in some cases they are right. It is reducing the cost to the program, like the YES program, like other programs. But unless someone picks it up, then the program is lost. And when you get good programs like YES, when you get other good programs that the federal government has piloted over the years - and they have been famous for it. They come in and they pilot a program. The maintenance enforcement program is one that comes to mind, where we had a three- or four-year agreement where they came in and gave us a whole bunch of money to do some groundwork, which was good; but then, when the program ended, we still have the unit, we still have expenses for the unit, ongoing O&M, and there was no money for a program which I think in the long run didn't necessarily help government but certainly helped a lot of mothers out there who weren't receiving regular maintenance payments. Yet the expectations were created and then it was left up to the Yukon government to carry on - as is with the YES program and other federal programs.

I imagine the Minister of Health could probably stand on his feet, and the Minister of Justice, and probably list a dozen programs. Legal aid is another good example. Legal aid - we were funding it to the tune of about $1 million a year a few years ago, and the federal government cut it and cut it and cut it and cut it, yet the expectations were out there that the legal aid level was available and the pressure was put on us, from the Opposition sometimes, mainly from the clients who needed it. It was a necessity and it forced us to put a little extra money into it and pick up the downloading. It didn't reduce the cost of government. It reduced the federal government's deficit, but there is only one taxpayer, and we're looking at them. It's us.

It doesn't matter how many levels of government we have, it all has to come from the one pocket. The federal government seems to forget that and prides itself on the reduced deficit. Meanwhile, the people that are really doing the cutting, the people that are really reducing the operation and maintenance of the government, other than the Yukon government, are the other provinces. In Ontario they're cutting back on their government. In British Columbia they announced 3,000 or 2,000 layoffs. The layoffs are something that no one likes but you have to realize that with the layoffs go other provincial programs that may be helping people.

The problem of alcohol and drug abuse and violence against women does not go away if you ignore it; in fact, it gets a lot worse. I think that by amending this particular motion that is in front of us, it sends a clear message to Ottawa in two respects: one, that our priority in the Yukon is to reduce crime and our crime isn't firearms related, so don't put the money into firearms-related licensing and registration. Our problem is alcohol and drug abuse and violence against women and children, which is very much related to alcohol and drug abuse and that's where the money should be spent.

I know that the minister said she was going to meet with Allan Rock. I spoke with Allan Rock. I was as close to Allan Rock as I am to the Leader of the Opposition. I said this very thing to him. I said this very thing to Allan Rock and Allan Rock nodded his head in agreement and then did nothing with my recommendations. If there is anyone in the whole world whose name is appropriate, it is Allan Rock. This guy is a rock. He ain't changing his mind no matter what.

It was a frustrating experience, believe you me, to stand there and not only listen to Mr. Rock tell us we were wrong, but to listen to senators and Liberal Members of Parliament who were women - who should have known better - stand up and say that my argument about the violence against women and alcohol and drug abuse in the Yukon was not right. It angered me to see those women who listened - those women in particular - to the instructions of Mr. Chretien and Mr. Rock and knew better. Sharon Carstairs was a good example. She knew better about how alcohol and drug abuse was causing a great deal of harm to Yukoners in the territory - to other women in the territory - and yet they weren't prepared to listen for a moment to our arguments, weren't prepared to give them an ounce of credibility, weren't prepared to listen to an individual who actually lived in the territory. That was irrelevant. They didn't want to hear from anybody who lived there or experienced it or had to deal with it or went to the conference on violence against women and children. They were not interested in what the people at that meeting said about violence and alcohol and drug abuse. They were not interested.

Sharon Carstairs was not interested in the issue of violence against women. It's sad, but that's the case. I was there; I saw it with my own eyes.

It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, and I became frustrated and angry and upset, and there wasn't anything you could do about it, because the bill was rote from day one. The bill was a done deal when Allan Rock said nobody but the police and military should have firearms, and he didn't care, and still doesn't care, at what cost it is to other women and children out there, what cost it is to anybody else out there. He doesn't care. He might tell you he does, but he wasn't prepared to listen to any sound arguments, not just from me. I'll bet every other justice minister of the country that attended with us in those meetings stood up and said very similar things - Stephen Kakfwi, identical. You could read the transcript of what everyone said, and we were virtually under attack from the Liberals when we went to present our views.

They weren't interested in what we had to say. It was a confrontational approach, and it was unfortunate, and it's reflected in the bill. The amendments that they made in the bill were a joke. They didn't touch any of the issues that were fundamental to the whole bill.

And then, months afterwards, they start cutting and decimating social programs throughout the country, and asking the provinces, and you and me, the taxpayer, to pick them up.

I don't think that's acceptable, and I hope that all members will support this amendment to the motion that's before us here today, and that we can take this motion, and the contents of the motion, and mail it to the Liberals in Ottawa. Maybe we should mail it to all the party leaders of all the respective parties in Ottawa, and again, with a cover letter from me or the Minister of Justice or the Government Leader expressing our strong views on how we think that this has been poorly handled and that they should have a second thought about this before it goes any further.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's certainly being demonstrated today that politics sometimes makes for strange alliances and also for differences, and I'm going to address both of those in my comments.

I do rise to support the amendment, but before I do that I really must comment on the previous speaker's remarks criticizing Liberal women for not knowing better and supporting the Bill C-68 legislation. It's interesting that the member's putting all the responsibility on women to make the right decisions. Perhaps that reinforces the problem that politics, like so much of society, is a male-dominated institution and that we certainly need more women participating in it. Nonetheless, I think the responsibility for the firearms legislation belongs squarely to the federal Liberal government as a whole and not strictly to the women in their caucus.

The member opposite is kibitzing there and I'm not catching all of his comments. Nonetheless, I am rising to support this amendment. I want to state that it is consistent with our position, that we support effective measures to reduce firearms violence but that we do not believe the registration and licensing laws contained in C-68 will have an impact on the criminal use of firearms, particularly not in northern Canada.

I also should let the previous speaker know that at the recent justice ministers conference in New Brunswick, I spoke with many of my colleagues from all political parties from various governments across Canada and, as members know, western premiers are united in a challenge of the firearms bill. So, there are political alliances on opposition to firearms legislation that certainly crosses party lines.

This amendment speaks to cancelling the costly registration system that is the most offensive part of Bill C-68. We take the position that effective crime-prevention measures should be government's priority. They should be the priority of the federal government. They are a priority of the Yukon government and the First Nations governments.

I think, in the end, that responsible citizens will register their firearms if all attempts to prevent this bill are unsuccessful. Nonetheless, it is far more effective to support initiatives to combat alcohol and drug abuse and to combat violence against women in society than it is to proceed with Bill C-68.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question on the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Thank you, very much. Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure indeed to be able to stand here and speak in a unified House about what we would like to see come into legislation and how we would like to see our federal government react, and maybe how we would also like to see them implement, I think, the people's desire.

I will speak in support of the motion. I do believe that the motion, as talked about previously by all previous speakers, has been spoken about with due elegance, due diligence. I believe that it is very important that we - the Government of the Yukon - speak in a unified voice to this motion.

Let me first of all say, Mr. Speaker, that violence in any culture is not a traditional value. Not at all. It must be said and reiterated time and time again that violence against women, against children, against one another should not be tolerated and considered deplorable in any society.

Turning firearms into weapons of violence, and categorizing them as such, will restrict nothing. We must look at better education; we must look at the social value system of our society and try and make it better. We must try to speak [First Nation language spoken]. You have heard me say that in this House before. It means "respect". It means respect for yourself before you can have respect for others surrounding you. Only then, will you be able to move forward. I find that in my experience of leadership, that [First Nation language spoken] is deeply missed today, and it is fundamental that we work together as people that are desirous to see respect and family systems brought back into existence in this country and all over the world.

By restricting firearms, it negatively impacts the people of the land and, I do believe, people in general. I will not try to reiterate all of the points that have been made by the previous speakers, but I would like to point out that by working together, we can do a lot of positive things for our society here in Yukon.

I would also like to point out that through cooperation of both levels of government - the Council of Yukon First Nations and all First Nations, the territorial government - within the Yukon Territory, only then will we be able to begin to mend that fabric that has been so sadly lacking, and I think is very desirous and wanted by all people in the Yukon.

Because we are Yukoners, we must stick together and act as Yukoners. I do believe then that this small jurisdiction of 30,000 people will be able to be pinpointed on a map and say, "There is where positive change is coming from. There is an example that we are living and working towards." I do see that that is going to be able to be brought into existence by cooperation, by working closely with all levels of government.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to again reiterate my support for this and I do believe that I would encourage all members present to work towards those ends.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question on the amendment?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker: Division has been called.

Mr. Clerk, would you please poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agreed.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agreed.

Mr. McRobb: Agreed.

Mr. Fentie: Agreed.

Mr. Hardy: Agreed.

Mr. Ostashek: Agreed.

Mr. Phillips: Agreed.

Mr. Jenkins: Agreed.

Mr. Cable: Agreed.

Ms. Duncan: Agreed.

Mrs. Edelman: Agreed.

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

Speaker: I declare the amendment moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition carried unanimously.

Amendment No. 2 to Motion No. 13 agreed to

Speaker: Is there further debate on the motion - Motion No. 13?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I will make my comments very short.

Bill C-68 is definitely a big blow to the people of Yukon. It affects the way in which we live, that is, all the people of the Yukon- the hunters, the trappers, the outfitters - those that use firearms for sports and those that use it for protection out on the land.

It also affects the aboriginal people of Yukon, Mr. Speaker. First Nation people in Yukon have anticipated that these things could come up and have attempted to have some protection for this and, in the umbrella final agreement under chapter 16, there are some attempts to try to have this type of issue addressed so that the First Nation people can continue their way of life and not be affected as much as the laws that are coming out of the federal government pushes it.

The federal government is slowly picking away at First Nations peoples' aboriginal rights. I feel that its another attempt to assimilate the aboriginal people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Yukon that own firearms, that use it as a way of life, would certainly be greatly affected once this bill is in force. One gun control that we have been speaking about to one another in Yukon is one that's very simple and that is a gun control where what you need is a good eye and steady hand. I think that concept that's out there right now is certainly part of people's lives and it should not change. We have a unique situation up here in the Yukon and I will continue to support the fight on Bill C-68 and not see the decent people of the Yukon dragged into a world of crime.

Speaker: The Member for Riverdale North, to close debate. The Member for Kluane.

Mr. McRobb: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is not much more I can add to what has been said already, but I do have a few words for the record.

Our government is opposed to the criminal use of firearms and will support measures to reduce firearms violence. However, there is no evidence that the universal registration and licensing requirements of the Firearms Act will reduce the criminal use of firearms, particularly in the north, where incidents of violent use of firearms are minimal.

People of the Yukon are generally safety conscious when using firearms and have a respect for firearms. This is especially so, given that guns are traditionally used for hunting and safety purposes. Let's not forget that the costs of firearms licensing and registration is estimated at $85 million minimum. This is difficult to justify in a world of federal cutbacks and downloading and corporate downsizing and streamlining. It makes sense to use the money on programs proven to be effective in getting at the root of violence, thus reducing violence against women and children. In Yukon, there are many incidents of violence, although a criminal activity with the use of firearms is rare. There are many ways this money could be better spent in the Yukon and throughout Canada.

In addition, Bill C-68 shows an incredible lack of consideration of the First Nations' cultural perspective and traditional lifestyle. It would cause undue hardship, particularly for elders who speak only an aboriginal language. If an elder wants to purchase a firearm, he or she would have to produce a firearms acquisition certificate, which is obtained only after taking a course. This could prove to be quite a challenge and a disruption for such a person, who would only be continuing on a traditional lifestyle.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Minister of Justice has indicated, the Yukon government and the Council for Yukon First Nations has developed a formal, good working relationship on firearm control. She met with CYFN Grand Chief Shirley Adamson and signed a joint letter to the federal Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, regarding Bill C-68. The letter indicated that both governments would like to meet with Mr. Rock to attempt to resolve issues surrounding the bill. The First Nations' self-government agreements allow for the right of First Nations to enact laws in settlement lands which could include the control or prohibition of the possession or use of firearms, which they will be pursuing with the federal justice minister through CYFN.

As these discussions are being carried out, our government will be working with CYFN in the hopes of coming up with a made-in-the-Yukon solution. YTG and First Nations have many areas of common concern such as crime prevention, safe use of firearms and violence.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we want to work cooperatively with CYFN and other Yukoners to come up with a regime that is relevant and sensitive to the needs of all people in the territory.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Although I spoke on the subject of Bill C-68 and have enjoyed very much the eloquent comments made by many people as recently as this afternoon on the subject, I thought I'd once again, for the record, simply state my support for the amended motion.

Clearly, in this territory there is a culture which believes firearms are used primarily as a tool and not a weapon to inflict damage on one human being from another. It is clear that given our traditions in the north, particularly in Yukon, that some of the more onerous provisions of Bill C-68 are completely inappropriate. The registration of firearms that many members have spoken about is one such onerous and bureaucratic response to a poorly identified problem. It's simply a move by government - in this case the federal Liberal government - to inflict paperwork on the citizenry rather than to deal with the core issues that the community and society faces.

So, I do support the amended motion, of course, and support our Minister of Justice in the efforts she is undertaking to, not only challenge