Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, November 24, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed with prayers at this time.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling the Health and Social Services Council annual report.

I also have a legislative return on the NovaLIS contract.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Ms. Duncan: I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Yukon River is a historical waterway; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to take steps to commemorate the Yukon River as a historical waterway, prior to and since the gold rush, during the Yukon Centennial Year of celebrations; and

THAT these steps should include plans to restore historic sites along the waterway and to enhance the Yukon River travellers' experience with appropriate additional signage along the waterway.

Speaker: Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Yukon Mining and Exploration Board training agreement

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: It is our government's policy to provide educational and training opportunities to help Yukon people find meaningful employment here in the territory and as much as possible in the communities where they choose to live.

In recognition of this, I rise to advise the House of a new training initiative undertaken by the Yukon government and the Yukon Chamber of Mines, entitled "the Yukon Mining and Exploration Training Board agreement".

Officials in the Department of Education and the Yukon Chamber of Mines have been working over the summer and fall to complete this agreement. This past Friday when the 25th annual Geoscience Forum got underway, chamber president Lee Pigage and I signed the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, good training, skills development and upgrading are essential for a modern workforce. This agreement lays the groundwork and provides seed funding to allow mining and exploration companies to become more involved with the communities and local people in setting the course for mining and exploration training. This agreement has a strong community and First Nation component that will help people who want to stay in their communities receive appropriate training that reflects the industry needs.

Over the next six months, the chamber will undertake three principal tasks: it will establish a training fund with a contribution of $300,000 from the Yukon government; it will set up a mining and exploration training board of between five and nine members, representing industry, labour, affected First Nations and rural communities to administer the training trust fund; it will develop a three-year strategy to address the training needs of the industry, including a schedule of training activity. The strategy will be subject to annual review and adjustment by the board.

Our government is accountable to the public taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, and we have taken steps to build accountability into this agreement. An annual report on expenditures of the fund and any training programs in process will be prepared for both the Chamber of Mines and the Yukon government.

Mr. Speaker, this government supports a healthy mining industry. Mining remains the largest private employer in the Yukon, and we want it to continue contributing to our economy. It is important for the Yukon to have a workforce with the skills necessary to take advantage of opportunities that become available in mining and exploration.

This agreement is all the more important as it involves industry right from the beginning in determining what the training programs are needed. This partnership between industry and government goes a long way toward ensuring that Yukon workers will be able to participate actively in the economic future of the territory.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Phillips:

We are pleased to see that the government is working with the Yukon Chamber of Mines to come up with a training trust fund. The only concern that we have is that figures were just released on the weekend with respect to the mining exploration and development in the territory, and they're down significantly. So, we all know, Mr. Speaker, that you have to have exploration and development to provide jobs, and to set up a training trust fund and spend your money training when there are no jobs would not be a wise use of the funds.

The government should be focusing more on working with the mining community in encouraging more development and encouraging the startup of more mines in the territory. In that way there will be more jobs created in the long run. It's unfortunate that, although the mining exploration is down here, we can blame it on Bre-X, and other activities in the world that affect us. It is no secret to the mining community that New Democratic Party governments have not been, in British Columbia and in the past, friends of the mining community. And I suppose that part of the sense of insecurity that mining companies have is because the Yukon has currently a New Democratic Party government.

It's interesting also to note that the Minister of Economic Development, who was the critic on this side of the House, used to complain bitterly about the Yukon economy when he was on this side of the House, but since he's become the Minister of Economic Development we have seen higher unemployment, tourism numbers that are flat, mining development and exploration has gone down and mines that are up and running, but just barely.

This Minister of Economic Development has not done a very good job and that is patently obvious by the figures and numbers that we're seeing coming in almost on a weekly or monthly basis. With this particular program, it is good to see that the government is working closely with the mining community. I think that is essential for it to work because the mining community will lay out its needs when it anticipates future needs in the territory, so I think it's critical that they work closely with them.

I would like to ask the minister how this particular training trust fund ties in with the Anvil Range training trust fund that was set up before to work with Anvil Range and how that ties in with it, because that appears to be a training trust fund set up specifically with an individual company and this one is more general. I guess all companies will be involved or more companies will be involved in that. So, I would like to know, from the minister, what the link is between the Anvil Range training trust fund and this mining training trust fund.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Duncan: On behalf of the Liberal Party caucus, I'd like to put forward three specific questions for the minister with respect to the ministerial statement issued today.

The first question relates to the mining trust fund that was mentioned a moment ago. On March 26, it was the Minister of Economic Development, the Member for Faro, that announced the $300,000 for a mine training trust fund. On April 8, that was elaborated on again by the Member for Faro, the Minister of Economic Development, who indicated that $150,000 of that training trust fund was coming from Economic Development and Advanced Education and $150,000 from the corporation. The Minister of Economic Development also said on April 8 that the mine training trust fund was separate from the mining training trust fund that was identified in the budget that was announced on that date. The Minister of Economic Development also went on to say that "the mining trust fund identified in the budget," which is what the Minister of Education has spoken about today, "will all be levered with some private sector participation if we have our way in the development of it."

I wonder if the Minister of Education would elaborate on the private sector participation?

The Minister of Education also today has noticeably omitted any time frames from this ministerial statement. I wonder if perhaps she could outline them in her response.

The third question is: does the minister or the government anticipate at any time an evaluation of the training trust model that's being used by the government? For example, Tourism has had some training trust funds for some time. Has an evaluation been conducted of this model, or is one anticipated to be conducted?

Those questions being asked, we would like to offer positive comments on the initiative, in terms of its partnership with industry and with First Nations, and recognizing the importance of the mining industry to the Yukon.

Thank you.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I would like to thank the opposition members for their comments. I note that they are pleased to see that we are working with the mining community, and I would like to assure the Member for Porter Creek North that we are working with the mining community, not just with this particular agreement between the Department of Education and the Yukon Chamber of Mines, but there is a lot of ongoing work that Economic Development is doing with the mining community that we believe will have good results.

The member was also concerned because we were putting funding for training into this trust fund in conjunction with the Chamber of Mines. He was concerned about the timing being poor for that. I'd like to remind the member that the chamber criticized the Yukon Party government for not training in the more quiet times, leaving training until after mines have been opened and having missed the boat on training. That's exactly the kind of criticism that we're trying to avoid.

The Anvil Range trust fund is a separate trust fund, and on questions related to that, I can just tell members that that particular agreement does involve a contribution from government and from the Anvil Range Mining Corporation, which is the largest private sector employer in the territory.

We have ongoing evaluation of the training funds with the annual reports that are provided and ongoing status reports. The model that that uses is one similar to this particular fund, where there is a board that involves industry and labour, affected First Nations and rural communities. We found that to be very effective, and I've certainly appreciated hearing some support from the members opposite for this fund.

Mobile home consumer education

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, as part of this government's policy of fostering healthy communities, I rise today to inform members of a new consumer education initiative undertaken by the Yukon Housing Corporation.

Earlier in the year, this government introduced a mobile home strategy to provide owners of mobile homes and rental properties with affordable options to address their housing needs. One element of this strategy is consumer education to build awareness of housing options and to encourage planning by mobile home owners to help them deal with the home ownership problems.

I am pleased to announce that early next month the Yukon Housing Corporation will conduct three consumer education sessions for mobile home owners. Each session will present information on safety issues and concerns and home ownership options, financing and the application process.

For those with an interest in acting on their housing needs, staff will perform an initial financial review to determine affordability. These evening sessions will be held at no charge to mobile home owners. Based on the demand, Yukon Housing Corporation will offer similar sessions early in the new year.

The corporation has developed a package that includes information on programs as well as an application and registration form for the upcoming sessions. Later this week, these packages will be hand delivered to all units in mobile home parks in Whitehorse.

In regard to public response to Yukon Housing Corporation's program, I would like to advise members that 30 mobile home owners have applied for assistance under the mobile home strategy since the introduction of the new financing options in early July.

In the majority of these applications, there is a desire to relocate existing mobile home units on to titled property. For that reason, the Yukon Housing Corporation is currently working to develop a new land tenure option. I am confident that the corporation will be able to identify practical, affordable solutions to land availability issues in the coming months. In the meantime, I am pleased that mobile home owners and occupants will be provided with information they need to help them improve their housing options.

Mr. Jenkins: On behalf of the Yukon Party caucus and the office of the official opposition, we are pleased to hear that the government is committed to addressing the needs of mobile home owners in the Yukon. But we're very concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the amount of time that this government has taken to follow through with its commitment, as outlined in the mobile home strategy.

Mobile home owners make up a significant portion of the Yukon. We, on this side of the House, fully recognize the full range of problems that people face as mobile home owners, finding themselves living in substandard housing units that they cannot afford to repair, giving them no other alternative for relocating or improving their homes.

During the Yukon Party's term in office, a task force of government officials and stakeholders studied the issues regarding mobile home owners and the challenges they faced. In 1996, a report was completed that surveyed mobile home owners and park owners. In May, the minister responsible for Yukon Housing announced the adoption of a mobile home strategy, stating that it was time for action.

Well, six months have passed since that announcement, and the government has been in office for over a year, yet work is still being done to identify solutions for mobile home owners. While we're pleased to see that some minimum progress on this important issue has been made, it looks as if there is much more work to be done. I might remind the minister that the time for action has considerably lapsed and was over a year ago. We're still waiting, Mr. Minister.

The minister also mentioned that work is currently being done to develop new land tenure options. Could the minister advise this House as to when we can expect these options coming forward and whether there have been any discussions or consultations taking place with the actual mobile home or trailer park owners?

During the Yukon Party's term in office, there was a proposal to develop a condominium concept for mobile home parks where mobile home owners could own their own land and common facilities and infrastructure. Could the minister tell me if there has been any progress with respect to this idea? I know this concept is being utilized elsewhere and it has been very successful as it has shown to improve the quality of life for mobile home owners and enhanced their overall security.

With respect to the financing options that were introduced in early July, I'd ask the minister if there was a press release by this government announcing these options or if there was any advertising of the programs. Offhand, I don't seem to recall any such publicity. I'm particularly pleased that this government will be providing each and every mobile home owner with an information package, although it's just in Whitehorse. I guess the rest of the Yukon is ignored.

The timing of the education initiative could have been better. December is really a poor month, Mr. Speaker, to go out and ask people to come to an education meeting on that issue.

I'd be curious if the minister could table the number of mobile home owners attending each session.

I'd also like to ask the minister if he could provide members of this House with a copy of the package that will be delivered door to door, so we'll be able to see exactly what it is this government has done to meet the many needs of mobile home owners. Perhaps we could have a look at it tomorrow, Mr. Speaker?

I guess the essence of this ministerial statement is that we're constantly going to educate but when is this government going to act? When are they going to act on the mobile home owners' needs?

Mrs. Edelman: I am pleased to see that the mobile home strategy announced this year by this government is continuing along. The Yukon has a very unique housing market. We have the largest percentage of mobile homes in our inventory in Canada.

When the mobile home strategy was originally announced, there were four areas that were to be targeted: land, financing, regulations and public information. Obviously, this announcement is an update on the public information aspect of the strategy, but the government also promised to review, within one year, the Landlord and Tenant Act. How is that review progressing?

Also, the biggest stumbling block to the mobile home strategy is the availability of land in Whitehorse on which to place older mobile homes. Now, it is my understanding that the City of Whitehorse is going to be dealing with this very issue of mobile homes this evening on the council agenda. In particular, the City of Whitehorse has a 10-year rule for mobile homes so that if a mobile home is over 10 years old, it cannot be moved into a new mobile home subdivision on titled land.

It is my understanding that the city is going to be re-examining this issue by looking at setting architectural standards for mobile homes instead of insisting that homes be less than 10 years of age in new mobile home subdivisions. The city may wish to stay with the 10-year rule, so how has the Housing Corporation worked with the city on this issue and what other options is the Housing Corporation looking at for land availability for older mobile homes in good condition that the owners want to place on titled land instead of in rental pads in trailer parks, which right now is the only other option?

Is the Housing Corporation working with the private sector on these initiatives? Is the minister partnering at all with the sellers of mobile homes, land developers or mobile home park owners? How does this mobile home strategy work in the Yukon's rural areas? Is there a move afoot to adopt architectural standards or even minimum safety standards for mobile homes in other Yukon communities?

When I read the ministerial statement the first time, it didn't really twig, but this time it has. These information packages are going to be hand delivered to every mobile home in Whitehorse. Is this a crossing of the picket line for Canada Post? What's going on? Was this originally the plan or are you doing this because it's difficult to track down addresses or is there some other point?

Lastly, the Member for Klondike mentioned the condominium study that was done in the last government. That condominium style of mobile home parks is one that's very often used for senior citizens.

Is there any work going ahead with that? Are you looking at that as an option for seniors housing here in the Yukon? Now, I know those are a lot of questions, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the minister can update us on the progress he has made on these issues. If he can't update us today, perhaps he can get back to us by way of letter or legislative return.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: First of all, in response to the Yukon Party's questions in regard to the amount of time, this situation has been developed by mobile home owners over the past 30 years. Since then, not a whole lot has been done to address the health and safety problems. It is a huge problem - people recognize that and it certainly won't be solved overnight. We have continued to work hard on this initiative and in order for this to be a success, we need to bring information to the mobile home owners - an information package to them in regard to financing and the health and safety issues of the parks and the units themselves. People need to know what options they have in regard to mobile homes or affordable homes.

We said it was time for action. We've put together this strategy and we're following up and following through it. It's not something that's going to be resolved immediately, like I said. We're working on putting thoughtful work into this strategy.

In regard to the question of whether or not we're working with the private sector, we have the corporation's joint venture program that the private sector is interested in, and we have been dealing with them on that. We have a bit of interest from them in regard to the private sector helping us resolve these problems. Because of, I guess, commercial confidentiality, I cannot provide specifics to that issue, but I must say that the private sector is interested in getting into the market and they've shown that to us.

The mobile home strategy is a comprehensive plan to deal a wide range of problems, and detailed applications have been received. They focus on two parts of the program. The corporation is dealing with 18 applications for upgrading and 12 applications for clients that want to relocate.

One of the difficulties that we are having right now, and we would recognize it right at the beginning, is in regard to land options, and we are working with our partners in that - the City of Whitehorse and C&TS - to resolve some of these problems.

I do expect that we will have a good turnout at these sessions that will be held. In regard to the older mobile homes, we have brought this issue up with the City of Whitehorse and they will be dealing with it.

As the member said today, hopefully it would be in our favour to fit right into the strategy to resolve some of these problems.

In regard to how does this fit into rural communities, we said we would be hand-delivering this. It has nothing to do with the postal strike. As it was said, we want to make sure that information we are providing is given to every mobile home owner so they will have that package in their hands.

Rural communities have not the problem that we have here in Whitehorse. Every community, through the Yukon Housing Corporation, will have this information provided to the park owners. Dawson and Watson Lake are the two other areas that have more mobile homes than the other communities. Certainly, the rural communities will be given the same information and same type of treatment from the Yukon Housing Corporation in regard to delivery of the information.

Thank you.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Bears shot in Whitehorse area

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Renewable Resources. The other day, there was yet another grizzly shot in the Whitehorse area. Most of these grizzlies have been shot as a result of the decision by Renewable Resources to electrify the fence around the dump.

Mr. Speaker, over the last three months, a total of 12 grizzlies have been shot out of an estimated 300 black and grizzly bears in the greater Whitehorse area. I'd like to ask the minister this: what can Yukoners expect of this minister and this government in relationship to future bear problems? What's going to happen next spring? Has the government given any thought as to how many more bears are going to have to be destroyed before this problem is solved once and for all?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: The fence around the landfill was to resolve a problem of garbage bears and the cycle of younger bears coming and using the garbage dump. We expected a higher number of bears to be coming in and being deflected from the garbage dump, and we're hoping that next year this is not a problem like we had this year. We do have good people that are working and keeping on top of the situation. They have been doing a good job over the past while, and we will continue to alert the public in regard to this problem continuing into next year.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems like these people are very good with a rifle, if not at planning what to do when they are faced with a serious situation.

Mr. Speaker, 12 grizzly bears have been shot and killed as a result of poor planning, literally poor planning, and no thought given to developing a comprehensive plan as to how to deal with these bears when they came to the dump and found it fenced. In any other part of the country this would be considered an ecological disaster, and here in the Yukon it seems to be fait accompli and nothing to get concerned about. This is from the same minister who supported the Aishihik decision and then went and lectured his colleagues on pumping CO₂ gases in the air.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister again if he could tell this House and tell Yukoners what changes are going to be made to the government policy to ensure that no more bears have to be killed.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the fence around the landfill had reasons for being there; one of them was for caring for the bears. If the member can think about it a little bit, bears come into the dump, eating garbage. We don't know what is in there. They cut up their paws and have burned fur and so on. If we can eliminate that problem in itself just by putting up a fence, then we've done a big thing.

Mr. Speaker, in closing the dump from bears, this doesn't resolve the problem of bears coming into communities. Living in the north, we are going to be faced with that forever. We have our conservation officers that deal with the situation when it does arise.

Mr. Ostashek: I'm very disappointed in this minister. He seems to think that it's better for a bear to be dead than to have its paws cut. That's what he's telling the House today. Let's just destroy the bears. Let's not have them have some singed fur; let's not have them have a cut on their paws; let's just kill them. Well, Mr. Speaker, Yukoners don't think that's very acceptable. They don't think that's very acceptable at all. Where is the Conservation Society when we need them?

Mr. Speaker, I would have expected that there be mass demonstrations in the community by now. I wonder where the friends of the bears are. Maybe they're hiding with the friends of the wolves.

Yukoners, with good reason, want to know what to expect from this minister and this government next spring. They don't want to see a continuation of bears being shot in residential areas of Whitehorse because an electric fence around the dump to solve one problem has created a safety problem within our community. What can Yukoners expect from this minister and this government in dealing with this problem in future years?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: The reason for this planning is not for the short term; it's for long-term planning. Mr. Speaker, it's not about the killing of bears. It's about saving bears and preserving them. If the member thinks about it deeply, he would understand it. And, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about the future. We're not talking about the present. I'm surprised at the comments that come from the member opposite when Yukoners all know his hunting practices.

Question re: Bears shot in the Whitehorse area

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, this sounds like the Government Leader's low blows again. We're not talking about my hunting practices. We're talking about this minister's responsibility - or irresponsibility - in handling a very serious situation in the Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, there has been absolutely no planning to deal with the potential problems associated with that electric fence. And, Mr. Speaker, I do know about grizzly bears. I do know that there could have been better planning put into this, not just to funnel the bears down into the Whitehorse residential areas where they have to be destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the minister thinks, Yukoners don't go along with his don't-worry-be-happy attitude when it comes to dealing with bears in the Yukon. I have received numerous calls from residents complaining about the manner in which this government has handled this situation.

Can the minister tell me this: has he received any calls from residents?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, we have received many calls from residents complaining about the number of bears in the landfill, and this has all led to the decisions made between the City of Whitehorse and Renewable Resources. It's all about caring and long-term planning. It's not about something that's short term. The member should think about long-term planning and looking at the caring of animals rather than just looking at killing bears. This is not a program to do that. It's actually a program to save bears.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, this minister is the one who's destroying bears in the Yukon, not the official opposition. The official opposition does care and that's why we're raising this issue and asking the minister to go back to the planning board. Go back and get a plan that works to deal with these bears that are being displaced by the electric fence around the dump.

This minister has not thought this out. You can see that when he stands up in this House. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when you have a fence around a garbage dump that's adjacent to a residential area, you're going to funnel those bears down into those residential areas and you're going to continue to do that next year and the year after and the year after that.

I want to ask this minister if he is prepared to go back and come out with a plan that's going to deal with the bears that are displaced by the electric fence.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: We have had information that has been given out to the public. We have it advertised in the paper that this could be a possibility and the member should note that we are in the small communities in the north and we're going to continue to have bear incidents in all the communities. That's not going to go away just because we have an electric fence around the Whitehorse landfill. Once a fence is set up, we're going to continue to have bears coming into the City of Whitehorse. It doesn't stop them just because there's a fence.

Again, we've had success with electric fences in other communities and it has been a success in other provinces. We feel that this is a long-term solution to the problem of garbage bears.

Mr. Ostashek: This minister's stumbling and stumbling badly when he's trying to assess this situation. The fact remains that he has a very serious problem on his hands and he's not prepared to deal with it or doesn't know how to deal with it.

We're going to continually have those bears coming into residential areas. This didn't happen until they put an electric fence around the dump. The bears were isolated in the dump area and very few came down into the residential areas.

I would like to ask the minister if he could advise this House how many bears in total have been destroyed in the Yukon by his department this year, not just in Whitehorse but in the other communities as well? What is the magnitude of the bear slaughter that has been carried out by his department? And if he doesn't know, maybe he could come back to this House tomorrow with a legislative return.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: The Department of Renewable Resources and the conservation officers respond to nuisance bears in every community. If there's a health and safety problem, we deal with the situation. In regard to the number of bears that have been put away by the department, I can bring those numbers to the member if he so wishes.

Question re: Electrical rate relief

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the energy commissioner on electrical rates, following up on our discussion of the other day.

Last Thursday, I asked the commissioner questions relating to his commission's work on rate relief. We got into an exchange of the four options that the commissioner put out to the public for discussion. The options are found in the discussion paper and the technical paper that the energy commission prepared in order to facilitate the public discussion.

From the discussion paper, under the reference to option 1 - and this was the quote I put to him last Thursday, in discussing the pros and cons of the status quo option - it said, "Most importantly, the status quo reflects conflict with the bill relief policy desired by the Yukon government, in which certain groups in need are targeted." Just for the record - just to clarify what was said the other day - is the form of targeted rate relief the government's desired form of rate relief?

Mr. McRobb: I'm commissioner of the energy commission, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity. To set the record straight, the commission doesn't deal with power rates. We are undertaking a review of the rate relief program. As the member will know, power rates are set by the Yukon Utilities Board after application from the Yukon Energy Corporation, which is under the minister.

The commission's discussion paper, including the options, merely sets out the options to provoke public debate and discussion on various possibilities that could be included in the future program. The first option - the status quo - was included not because that's what we wanted to see, but to basically explain what's currently in place. Indeed, it conflicts with the statements from the minister in this House one year ago, where he explained that we wanted to see a targeted program to assist those most in need, based on affordability and especially targeting seniors and people on fixed incomes. So, the reference to "conflict" in that particular discussion paper merely identifies the difference between what we would like to see and what is currently in place. The program currently in place does not, specifically, target those in need.

Mr. Cable: Okay, trying to work through all that, the targeted rate relief options that are in the discussion paper talk about increases in residential bills, for those not targeted for relief. For example, under option 2 it says, "This option would allow residential bills to increase significantly." Now, when I asked the commissioner last Thursday about the amount of the increases, he was a little vague. So, let me ask this question: when the discussion paper and the technical paper were put out for public discussion had the commissioner or his staff calculated the increases that would result from the three targeted rate relief options?

Mr. McRobb: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, and for good reason. Those options are merely discussion-provoking options. And, to run simulated scenarios of the costs of each of the options would involve a significant amount of time and money.

At this stage, the consultation and discussion stage, we are dealing with concepts. The item the member refers to, about significant increased cost to residential ratepayers, is once again due to the cost-of-service policy of the previous government, where they required the Utilities Board to increase the cost of service from 80 percent to at least 90 percent over the next 10 years. At this point, that is about seven or eight years. That particular increase amounts to what we refer to as a significant increase.

The reason why that option is included in the discussion paper is to provide opportunity to discuss it and to see whether the people really want this type of increase to residential customers - to give them an opportunity to say "no", "maybe" or "yes". But, the way it currently stands, the government subsidizes the residential rates though this cost-of-service subsidy.

Mr. Cable: So the commissioner wants us to accept the fact that he put out a discussion paper and a technical paper with various options - three of which were talking about rate increases - yet he had not calculated the rate increases. Now, he's indicated that he's going to go to Cabinet by the end of this year with his recommendation or recommendations. Does he anticipate telling Cabinet what the rate increases will be under the desired option?

Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, I think the member needs to refer back to the discussion paper. These are not rate increases we are referring to. For instance, the first option merely describes the status quo. The status quo involves rate increases of 15 to 20 percent for residential consumers in the next seven to eight years because of the cost of service adjustments.

This is similar to the rebalancing that we are experiencing with the telephone company. The Yukon Party required this to also apply to residential power rates. That is the status quo option. We're not proposing that. That is what is in place now.

As far as the costs of these different options, I'm sure Cabinet will be aware of the costs and the benefits when it makes that decision.

Question re: Electrical rate relief

Mr. Cable: Well, assumedly, in that the commissioner is the one putting the options forward, he will have calculated them.

Now, on Thursday and again today, the commissioner got into a discussion of the move to take residential-class consumers' rates closer to the full cost of service, away from the present subsidization by other customers. I got the impression both on Thursday and today that the commissioner seemed to be making negative comments on this move toward full cost of service by residential consumers.

Is the commissioner saying that, as a matter of policy, this is not desirable?

Mr. McRobb: Once again, I would refer the member back to the discussion paper. The increase in cost of service - referred to as a "significant increase" - is based on a decision already in place, which means unless government steps in and does something about it that increase will occur over the next seven to eight years. The increase is in the neighbourhood of 15 percent to 20 percent.

This decision was made by the Yukon Utilities Board early in 1996, based on an application coming forward in 1995. This is not a proposed increase; this increase is, in effect, a time bomb - if you will - left in place by the previous government.

Mr. Cable: This government has had a whole year to reverse that decision. Is the commissioner saying that this government does not want to instruct the Public Utilities Board to reverse the move toward having residential customers pay the full cost of service?

Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry for sounding repetitive but, once again, I have to refer the member back to the discussion paper. The status quo has that increase in place. For the government to intervene and reverse that increase would be a significant measure on behalf of government, no doubt one we'd be heavily criticized for, especially considering that the Yukon Utilities Board is completely independent from government.

Now, this increase is certainly something we want to take a look at, and hopefully we'll hear submissions from our stakeholders on this issue and consider it in due process through the recommendations of the commission.

Mr. Cable: The board certainly is an arm's-length board, but it does receive direction, as it did in 1991, when it received direction on cost of service.

Now, the commissioner indicated the other day that his recommendations were going to Cabinet by the end of the year. Assumedly there'll be some decision time and directives to either the Development Corporation or the Yukon Utilities Board, and then there'll be time to change the billing methods on the computer.

When will a new rate relief program be in force?

Mr. McRobb: Well, yes, I can assure the member that, contrary to his own previous press releases on this issue, there will be no gaps in rate relief provided to ratepayers this winter, no matter what happens. There will be rate relief at all times.

Now, what the commission is currently contemplating is an experimental program for 1998 before finalizing the long-term program. There are several different factors that play into this type of decision. Some of them at this time are not known, such as the ultimate fate of the Faro mine, future power rates and issues of affordability, all of which will be taken into consideration by the commission. And, yes, the commission will be forwarding its recommendations to Cabinet next month, and there will be a program in place for 1998, but probably the experimental program - one that everyone can review and comment on and be altered before being cemented in place for the long term.

Question re: Bears shot in the Whitehorse area

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, let me get back to the Minister of Renewable Resources on the grizzly bear problem in the Whitehorse area.

Parks Canada recently completed a six-year, million-dollar study of grizzly bears in Kluane National Park, Mr. Speaker. Some 20 to 25 grizzly bears were radio-collared and tracked. Initial findings of that study indicated that sows produced fewer cubs and less often than their counterparts in British Columbia. This led one of the biologists to comment, "We have to be careful about managing this population because even in good conditions it probably isn't going to be growing very fast."

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from this minister how the slaughter of 12 grizzly bears in the Whitehorse area, approximately half of what was involved in the study, conforms to the study's finding of recommending a higher standard of care for preserving Yukon grizzlies?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: First of all, it was not a slaughter. The department is working with the City of Whitehorse to deal with a long-term solution and to eliminate bears from being shot.

Mr. Speaker, we know that, without the fence around the landfill, there is a possibility of bears coming into town regardless of that, and they could be destroyed by the conservation officers. Mr. Speaker, this is a long-term solution.

Mr. Ostashek: I don't think anyone's advocating the removal of the fence. We're advocating a different manner of handling the bears that are being displaced by the fence, rather than being slaughtered by the game department.

Has the minister given any thought to trapping these bears that come down to the dump and are displaced by the electric fence - and relocating them?

In every other jurisdiction in Canada and the United States, bears are given at least one chance before they're destroyed. Will the minister consider that and be part of the solution of protecting the Yukon grizzly bear population, rather than being a main problem by decimating it?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: We have done a number of things in regard to putting up the fence. We're tracking which bears are coming to the fence. There have been snares put up so that bears that are coming toward the landfill may be caught and relocated.

Mr. Speaker, we're not asking people to stop hunting bears. The number of bears that have been hunted over the past years is down considerably. We are not asking that outfitters, for example, stop hunting bears. We're not asking people to do that. What we're trying to do is solve a problem, in the long term, of garbage bears.

Mr. Ostashek: I think the minister should go back to his department and get properly briefed, so that he can answer these questions. All of these bears that are destroyed by the Department of Education impact on the level of harvest that there will be in the future. That's a given.

Mr. Speaker, grizzly bears are on the endangered species list. I would like the member to explain how this bear slaughter is in keeping with the Department of Renewable Resources' mandate to protect and preserve Yukon's wildlife. Can he tell the House that?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: As I said to the member a number of times, this is a long-term solution to this problem and it is for the protecting of bears from being shot in the future. I can't see where the member can misunderstand what's being said.

Question re: Tourism, advertising tender

Ms. Duncan: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. The tendering forecast issued by Government Services earlier this year indicates that the standing offer of agreement for Tourism for advertising in excess of $1 million is to be tendered in November. We're now in the last week of the month and no one I have spoken with has, as yet, seen the standing offer of agreement. Would the minister indicate when it will be tendered?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, certainly the department is working in cooperation with the tourism industry and is currently working on the terms of reference and we expect the tender to be in place in January.

Ms. Duncan: In the past, an argument has been presented and I'm sure the minister's been fully briefed on the need for what's called a full-service agency, one agency that sells the Yukon. This can be the most cost effective and efficient route and, as the minister has noted, is supported by many members of the tourism industry.

However, one of the difficulties with a full-service agency is local knowledge, for example, the Yukon Vacation Guide, which is produced every year. Yukon residents have the computer skills, the design skills and the computer capability to produce the material in digital format, which could then be transferred to the full-service agency, located anywhere in the world. With local knowledge working on pieces like the Vacation Guide, they're a lot less likely to end up with maps that forget Stewart Crossing, for example.

Will the minister commit or advise this House that the standing offer agreement is being thoroughly reviewed in terms of requirement for the full-service agency to shop locally and report locally, in other words, for the full-service agency to comply with some degree of local hire?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the department is looking at all of the requests that the member opposite has brought forth, and I certainly have to reiterate that what we do is in consultation with the Tourism Industry Association and that we are looking to get the best bang for our buck. So certainly, the thoughts that the member opposite is stating are being incorporated in, and worked through, the terms of reference and will be somewhat put into place. But again, it's done in consultation with the TIA, and we're here to get the best bang for the buck for what we wish to achieve and accomplish in the Yukon.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the minister that I do not dispute the efforts of working with the tourism industry. I wanted to ensure for the record that they were working with the local hire commission as well.

Would the minister indicate in approximate terms - and perhaps he may wish to do this by legislative return - what percentage of that standing offer agreement, the million dollars, is expected to be spent locally?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, that is not information that we have. I would reiterate and say that we're working through the process now. We expect that we'll have the terms of reference done and a tender brought out and, at that time or even before, I can certainly let the member opposite know the local hire percentages as it evolves.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now resolve into Committee of the Whole.

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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

Is it the members' wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: Fifteen minutes.

Recess

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

The Committee is dealing with Bill No. 8.

Bill No. 8 - Second Appropriation Act, 1997-98

Chair: We are in general debate.

Executive Council Office - continued

Ms. Duncan: I'd like to address some comments and questions in general debate to the expenditure respecting the land information management system. The Government Leader may wish that the Government Services minister respond, as he and I have already begun our exchange on this particular topic. There was a legislative return today.

I have a great deal of difficulty with this particular project - not the project itself, or the fact that we're doing it, but the way that it has been handled to date. To start with, perhaps I could ask whomever is chosen to respond to indicate if the $300,000 identified in the supplementary budget is payment for the NovaLIS contract.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Yes, there is some funding in there for the infrastructure of that system and, just offhand - I would have to break down the individual contracts - but I would imagine that that is for payment for some of the initial stages of that contract.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I would remind the minister that we had a very lengthy discussion in this House between the former Government Leader, the current Government Leader and the Liberal caucus regarding post-approval of expenditures, and it is intended that the parties will address this in the future.

The difficulty I have with this particular series of contracts is the history. The legislative return, unfortunately, further muddies the waters rather than clarifies the waters. Perhaps I could explain to the minister the history of this project as I understand it, and he could elaborate further?

A request for proposal for this LIM system was tendered by Government Services. The request for proposal was so specific that no locals could compete. It required the Oracle software. That contract was won by Monenco Agra and it was in the amount of $42,000.

For some reason, there was a decision made to deviate from the Oracle software, and a request for information that has no basis in our contracting regulations was issued.

The request for information included a presentation on the claim system by the City of Whitehorse and others, business partners of theirs, for a system that is up and operational and is used by the Government of Yukon land titles. This request for information had no prices, no further options and no real questions were asked. Based upon that request for information, some $400,000 is being paid to a Nova Scotia company.

The minister, on November 3, was asked questions about this - we are being asked with this supplementary budget to approve that $400,000 worth of contracts - post-spending, and I have a real difficulty with that. And, that difficulty is compounded, Mr. Chair, by the fact that, on November 3, I asked questions in this House on this contract. On November 3, the Minister of Government Services met with industry and was asked a further series of specific questions, and he was given a recommendation by industry. And, on November 4, industry wrote to the Minister of Government Services. The difficulty we have is that somewhere along the line there has been an error.

Somewhere along the line, somebody didn't tender this project and local opportunists, or people who have the expertise - pardon me, let me rephrase that - local entrepreneurs are not being invited to participate on this. On November 3, the minister and the local hire commissioner met with these individuals, and the minister has accused me of speaking on behalf of one firm in this House, when it was competing firms that met with them. One of the specific recommendations was to put a fence around this project now - get an independent evaluation and let's have a look at it. How far along are we?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan: The local hire commissioner is piping up from the back benches that I'm wrong. This is going to be a lengthy discussion; perhaps I could have a response on the questions to date, and we'll continue from there.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Could the member clarify what her specific question was?

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, let me focus for the minister's benefit. What is the extent of the Yukon government's commitment to the technology proposed by NovaLIS?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, Mr. Chair, we intend to follow through with the terms of the contract and that would be the extent of our involvement in this particular contract.

I guess the member is asking where does this move out from here? I've already committed to the industry that, in terms of future developments in that regard, we would certainly be looking at working with them. I received a letter from one of the principals in this project and I have written a letter in that regard back, answering some of the specific questions. Interestingly enough, one of the specific questions was the question just asked by the member.

Ms. Duncan: When was the minister's response sent and is he prepared to provide me with a copy of it?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I wrote the letter last week. I've sent it over for some checking on some technical details. With regard to would the member be getting a copy of it, since the letter was cc'd to her originally from one of the industry principals, yes, by measure of courtesy, I would send it to her.

Ms. Duncan: The first part of the minister's response indicated that the existing contracts with NovaLIS would be completed, will be honoured. The total on that is $400,000-some odd. Could the minister refresh my memory and the public's memory as to what the total value of the LIMS project is anticipated to be?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: The contracts are as follows: initiation phase, June 1997, $24,500; software licences and consulting services for land titles and land disposition application, July 1997, $340,438; software licences for mapping components, October 1997, $45,050; transfer of data from existing computer applications, October 1997, $32,500.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I know what the existing contracts to NovaLIS are. The minister finally provided them today.

The question I asked was what the total cost of the LIMS project is anticipated to be.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Besides the NovaLIS-related contracts and money that has been expended before, we're anticipating that flowing out of this there will probably be some additional $400,000 that would be likely in terms of local mapping applications and things of that nature that would be flowing into that. As a matter of fact, we're feeling there will be about $400,000 relating to converting maps and documents to electronic form. That has yet to be tendered, and in all likelihood that would be able to be accomplished by local companies.

Ms. Duncan: I would assume that this is the land survey work that one of the people involved with the project indicated was never going to happen. When does the minister anticipate this work being tendered?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: As far as an exact date, I'd have to get back to the member on that, but I would imagine that would be beginning next year.

Ms. Duncan: That is the beginning of next calendar year, or the beginning of the next fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I would assume it would be the beginning of the next fiscal year.

Ms. Duncan: Given the minister's earlier response, I would anticipate then that the total cost of the LIMS project is in the neighbourhood of $850,000. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Yes, I think that's a fair assumption.

Ms. Duncan: I'd like to go back for a brief moment, if I may, to the method of tendering these contracts to NovaLIS. Has the minister conducted any sort of an investigation into this?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: If, by "investigation" the member is suggesting in a pejorative sense, no. Have I asked questions about how this was done? Have I suggested that perhaps these are areas that we need to look at? Yes.

Ms. Duncan: Am I to understand that the Minister of Government Services is not entirely satisfied with the way that these particular contracts were tendered?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I think it's fair to say that we're always seeking ways to do things in a somewhat better way - oh, that flowed nicely. One of the issues, I think, that has been perhaps a bit of concern to me was, I suppose, the lack of response from some of the local companies initially on the first three tenders. What that has suggested to me and what I've conveyed to Government Services is that I would like them, even if on a particular contract we don't get responses - I've suggested that perhaps what we could be doing is at least following through with some of the individuals that might be interested in this to find out if there's some particular way or something about this particular tender that inhibited them. I've asked Government Services, as well as the local hire commission, to give us some suggestions on ways to perhaps make contracts more manageable. Perhaps there are some things that can be done in terms of staging of contracts and things of that nature.

And, to their credit, even though they haven't finished their final report, the local hire commission has given me some suggestions in that regard and I've conveyed those on to Government Services.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the opposite side, and some ministers in particular, are terribly fond of indicating I haven't done my homework, and I'd like to advise the minister that I have done a great deal of work on this particular issue and I'd like to commit to provide him with some information.

The New Brunswick GIC, which is the Geographic Information Corporation, is expanded to the point where people can get their driver licences and so on in remote communities. I've had lengthy discussions with this Crown corporation and they were very kind to give me their request for proposal for the development of the planned PID databank request for proposal, which is very similar to the original request for proposal that the government issued. I'm going to provide it to the minister and to the local hire commission. Amongst other things, there's a requirement in this - the original request for proposal was not responded to by industry because it was so specific in calling for the Oracle software.

The minister is nodding in agreement.

The original request for proposals, which was won by Monenco Agra was so specific, local people did not bid on it. The New Brunswick request for proposal also called for the Oracle software, but it allowed local companies to bid on it, because it allowed them to get that expertise from elsewhere.

I'm going to provide this to the minister and to the local hire commission with my request, on behalf of people who are involved in the industry, to take a close look at it. Had the government used the model from New Brunswick, three local companies could have bid on this project in its original form.

Can I have the minister's public commitment to examine this particular request for proposals?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: We always welcome information - things that could make the process better - and I'll certainly take a look at it and refer it to Government Services for review.

With specific regard to the New Brunswick proposal, I believe the member raised this before, mentioning that NovaLIS, in this case, did not follow up on that project. When I did some checking in that regard, I found that NovaLIS' reluctance was basically twofold: one was the scale of the project - they felt that it was on a smaller scale; and, two, it would have required the entire team to locate in New Brunswick and they didn't feel that the cost benefit would have - I'm just conveying to the member what was relayed to me - so, for that reason, they chose not to participate.

Ms. Duncan: We're engaging in a vigorous discussion of "he said, she said." That's not productive to the work of this Legislature. My point is that I feel that these contracts were not dealt with appropriately. I felt that there should be some form of an independent review of them. The minister has indicated that he has reviewed, and there will be recommendations forthcoming. I have to accept that. I have no choice; the $400,000 has been spent.

I also have the minister's commitment that the balance of the work will be tendered locally - or will be tendered.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan: It will be tendered. Will it be tendered in such a way that local companies have the opportunity to compete on it? Will they be reviewing or providing input on the request for proposal or tender - or however the remainder of the work is put out?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: As I said before, there is about $400,000 related largely to maps and data transfer, and that will be tendered. One of the feelings of the department is that, given the expertise, given the familiarity of some of the local companies with Oracle technology, that would fall easily within their realm. So, they're feeling that this would be a good area for local companies to be involved in.

I'm sorry, I just can't recall what the other part of the question was. No, that was it? I can give the member assurance that the $400,000 will be tendered.

Ms. Duncan: The balance of the question was as follows: will it be tendered in such a fashion that local companies will be able to compete on it or will it be tendered so that it's written for NovaLIS?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: No, it will be tendered in a way to give local companies the best opportunity. One of the things that I did commit to in working with the industry and in my response to one of the principals was that I would like to see how we could, in future, develop a system in such a way that there would be the maximum opportunities for local companies involving GIS technology. I've directed the department to make contact with the companies, and I took the letter from the individual who wrote to me as being a signal that they wanted to move in that direction. So, we are interested in working with the industry in this regard.

Ms. Duncan: Will there be further consultations with industry then?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Yes, that's the object of this. As a matter of fact, I've suggested that we sort of expand it out - and that was on the suggestion of one of the other participants at the meeting - so that not only do we work with people involved in the GIS technology, but also in terms of the whole kind of electronic information kinds of industry as well.

So, I have directed that our department look at setting up a series of ongoing consultations. I think that's very consistent with the direction that I would like to see Government Services go; a greater participation with various industries, not just GIS but construction and others in looking at some of the regulations and some of the ways that we can make contracts more, I suppose, in a sense, user-friendly for the local industries.

Mr. Jenkins: Last Thursday when we left off, I had a question of the Minister of Finance, asking the minister to table the contract registry from March 31 forward. The Minister of Finance responded, "No," and then, after a short pause, said he'd review the matter and provide the members with an answer on Monday. So my question is to the Minister of Finance: is he prepared to do the honourable thing today and table the contract registry from March 31 forward?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: What constitutes the honourable thing perhaps has varied over the course of the last several years. Certainly, the honourable thing would be to ensure that any member of the Legislature, or their staff, can have access to the contract registry. I can assure the member that the contract registry is open for their scrutiny. If they wish to go and have a look at it, time will be made for them to flip through it and get any information they wish to receive, and they can have full access to the information that they want.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, but that's a very convoluted program, Mr. Chair, and I was wondering why the minister chose this course to access this information. The easiest thing for both sides, and for this Legislature, is to table the contract registry and get it over and done with. You know, we're going to spend considerable time and effort on this side going up and going through it. I don't know what the minister is trying to hide by taking this course of action, but by taking this course of action, where's all this accountable government that the minister is constantly talking about? Is this just a facade that he's putting forward, and the reality is something else? That seems to be the case, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, the government is just as accountable as it was last year and the year before that. The last time an interim contract registry was actually published at cost and tabled was 1993.

Since then, the government has chosen not to publish interim reports, but has instead published once a year. I'm saying to the member that there is nothing being hidden and that the innuendo - the snide innuendo - does him no service. There's nothing being hidden at all, and with a little bit of effort, a minuscule bit of effort, the member can actually go and see all the contracts, all the information, in its detail, as he wishes. It is something that is perfectly available to him, and if he or his staff is at all capable of taking an hour and flipping the registry, then they can do so.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It seems like a heck of a process that we're going to go through to get information that is routinely tabled in the House. I understand that annually this information is tabled, but an update has been provided to the House on any regular basis over any number of years.

I was hoping that the minister, in his new, more open type of government that he constantly amplifies in the public domain, would like to take it upon himself and provide this information. It is the basis for which we can correlate expenditures back to contracts and see where this money has gone, and ultimately save the House the considerable amount of time in back and forth discussions as to what this about and going into the most minuscule of details.

I would encourage the minister to reconsider his position - he has opened up somewhat - and to table that contract registry from March 31 forward, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, the information, as I pointed out to the member, is not routinely tabled at all. It was tabled once, and I understand at considerable expense. There is no attempt to hide anything from the member. I realize that the member's got a busy schedule, but it will only take an hour or so to go to the contracts office and flip through the register. There is nothing difficult about that, if the member wants to do that. He doesn't have to take any time of this Legislature. I realize he's busy, but surely he has some staff or someone who can flip through the contract registry.

The information is available to anyone who wants to go and see it, and the members can see it. If they have any questions about any particulars, the information will be right there, right then. They don't have to go through any intermediaries. They don't have to ask other people to do their work for them. They can get the information right away.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, so much for open, accountable, cooperative government. I notice that the ministers are very, very busy - busy travelling. In the travel documents or travel things that were put out by the minister last Thursday, we see that ministerial travel has doubled from the last 14 months of the Yukon Party, and that's doubled, Mr. Chair, vis-à-vis 12 and a half months for the NDP to 14 months for the Yukon Party.

Can the minister give us any explanation why travel costs have doubled?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, first of all, Mr. Chair, I find the opening shot by the member particularly obnoxious, because the policies that we're abiding by right now with respect to the disclosure of public materials is exactly his policy, and for him to stand up only a very short time later and say that somehow the actions that were taken are unfortunate betrays a certain inconsistency. And I have said that the information that the member wishes is public information, is available. Only the most minor bit of energy on their part can get them access to every single document with respect to that contract registry - not just summaries, but every single thing they want.

With respect to ministerial business travel, the member has chosen to compare the amount of travel that the government does, which, I believe, when it's detailed, the public will see is justified. But he has chosen to compare that level of travel with last year. If one compares it with 1994-95, one will see that it is exactly the same as that year for a comparable period of time and using the same indicators, comparing apples to apples, oranges to oranges. The amount of outside travel by ministers and their staff is exactly the same. I think we're different by only $200. We are up $200 from 1994-95 for exactly the same period.

The government has a job to do. The ministers are not going to retreat from their duties. They're not going to go and hide. They've got a job to do, and I expect them to do the job. There's no ivory-tower decision making here. We're not waiting for people to come to us. We've got work to do.

If the member looks at each of the business travel items that are in the list, he'll see that every business travel had a purpose. If he disagrees with the particulars, then he can say so. If he doesn't think a particular trip was warranted, he can say so. But, in its detail, I believe that this travel was essential for the operations of this government.

Mr. Ostashek: The minister can get as defensive as he likes. The fact remains that travel is up double. We don't believe that it's necessary that it's up that high. I will go back and check 1994-95. We're checking the last four months; those are the latest figures we have to go by.

We have a Government Leader who is going around the Yukon telling Yukoners that they have to tighten their belt, that they have to lower their expectations as to what government can provide for them. Yet, they think nothing of spending money on themselves - a substantial amount of money, Mr. Chair - both inside and outside the Yukon. Travel has doubled.

I find that offensive when he's going around telling Yukoners that they have to tighten their belts, and they can just go ahead, merrily on their way, and spend all the money they think is necessary to travel. It looks like they take a substantial amount of political staff with them, something that was a policy of my government to not do.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, in the first instance, travel is not up from 1994-95 by any means. Outside travel is not up at all. In fact, it mirrors what the Yukon Party did itself. Secondly, what is up is the in-territory travel. I can tell the member that I'm happy that the travel is up for in-territory travel by ministers and by the caucus. I'm happy, and I will defend it anywhere.

I can tell the member another thing: there is hardly anyone in rural Yukon - I have not met anybody, but I will say that there's hardly anybody - who believes that ministers should not be travelling more into rural Yukon instead of always insisting that the people from rural Yukon travel to the oracle in Whitehorse.

This is an opportunity for the people to get into the rural communities and speak directly with the rural communities. The meetings we had in Mayo, Watson Lake, Haines Junction had very large community events and people were very happy to see the members there. They were very pleased to see the members there for a couple of days. They felt that that level of attention was more than overdue them. I only regret that, when I was in government before, we weren't doing that same thing. The people weren't getting into the communities more.

But I can tell the member, just so he knows - on notice - that if that level of internal travel or travel inside the territory goes up again, I'm going to be supportive of it. I will take the member on in public, any time, on that expenditure. Then the member can go out into the rural communities and ask, himself, if he thinks that this is a worthwhile expenditure of public funds for some of the ministers to get into the communities a little more often. He will have a come-uppance like he's never had in his life if he goes out there saying that the few hundred bucks for a trip into rural Yukon was a waste of money.

Because the rural people have had it when it comes to always insisting that they have to come to Whitehorse in order to see a minister or talk to the government in some comprehensive way. I disagree with the member on that front. I disagree with the member that this is an inappropriate use of funds. In fact, I think it is an extremely important use of funds.

And, by the way, I was going out there talking to people about more modest expectations. People wanted to see me, and others, and they wanted to have that dialogue in their homes, in their community halls, in their kitchens, with them on their turf. Because some of the expectations out of the last political campaign were astronomical, and they wanted to talk about priorities. Amongst things, they wanted to talk about the CDF and wanted to make sure that we were supporting the CDF and weren't listening to those other guys. And I reassured them, indeed, we will be supporting the CDF, just as an example. But that dialogue is going to continue, Mr. Chair. It will continue, and I'm hoping there will be more of it.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Chair, the only come-uppance I see is what this Government Leader will get when he gets the courage enough to call the next election. That's the come-uppance I seek.

Mr. Chair, the fact remains that the ministers did travel under my administration. It was the style they travelled in - that's the whole difference. This Government Leader thinks he can stand there and get angry and thinks he's going to shut us up. Well, I've got news for him. We're not going to shut up. We're going to question him, and we're going to question him very critically, just as he did when he was in opposition. The fact remains, travel is up 100 percent by a Government Leader who's telling Yukoners to tighten their belt, that they can't have the same expectations of government. Well, they certainly can't if he's going to spend money this liberally on himself, that's for sure.

Can the minister tell me, does he expect that travel is going to go up next year again, or is it going to come down?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I don't want to dissuade the member from carrying on this line of questioning at all. I am so confident about our position, and I'm so confident about going into rural Yukon today and running in an election and cleaning that member's clock, that there's no possible way that I would want this member to do anything other than he's doing right now. Because I can guarantee the member that I've already thought of a couple of good quotes from the member that are going to get into rural Yukon; believe me. I want the debate; I want the discussion; and I want the member to object, because when we go into a rural community, showing up in a government car like previous ministers, staying in a community hotel, just like the previous members, when we go and do that, and they talk about this as being unrealistic or unwarranted, then believe me, he doesn't even have to carry his message into rural Yukon. I will carry his message into rural Yukon. No problem.

When it comes to outside-of-territory travel, the amount of travel that has been taken, I believe, is justified. The member says it's doubled over last year. Well, it's the same as the year 1994-95, the previous year that he was in government.

So he's obviously condemning his own practices; he's obviously having a change of heart now that he's in opposition, but I'm telling the member that I believe that the travel that was taken by our government officials to conferences - going to first ministers conferences, going to the Cordilleran Roundup, going to the Prospectors and Developers Association last year - these trips, I believe, are important. The ministerial conferences I believe are important too, because these meetings are important places where national issues affecting the Yukon are discussed. We don't go to all the conferences, of course, but we do believe the ones we've chosen to attend are important for the future of this territory, and we will be there.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, I'd like to know which one they missed, because it seems like they attended them all. Not only that, it's the size of the delegations they're taking, such as to the Cordilleran last year.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: "Yes, what?" the Minister of Economic Development says. I believe there were five government members at that meeting, four for sure.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: One was, but the other four weren't.

The minister says he can justify all that travel. The biggest complaint that we had of a previous NDP government seems to be the same as this government, is all of the staff that they surround themselves with, so nobody can talk to them when they go to a community anyhow, and that seems to be where the biggest increase in travel cost is - the amount of staff that they're taking with them.

Will the minister be prepared to table a list of attendance at his community meetings, each and every one of them - the number of people that attended. On the outside travel, can the minister tell me, when he goes to Ottawa, does he take staff with him?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, in answer to the last question no, not always. This last meeting with Mr. Martin and the meeting with Jane Stewart last week or the week before, no staff went with me. That doesn't mean that they won't go in the future. It depends on the purpose of the meeting. It depends on whether or not there should be some staff and it's a judgment call made in each case.

With respect to the Cordilleran Roundup last year, two ministers happened to be coming through because they were attending other conferences and they attended that gathering. They took an interest in this meeting because they were travelling through and they made a point of coming. They made a point of it. The Minister of Economic Development, of course, was there and I was there and the commissioner responsible for DAP was there. So clearly, I received no complaints whatsoever from anybody other than the member opposite. In fact, I received comments from the people who attended the conference that it was a good thing that the member who was responsible for the development assessment process was present, a very good thing. They were happy that we were there. So, the member should open his door, go outside, breathe a little fresh air, talk to a citizen and come back and we'll have a discussion again.

With respect to the staff in the communities, we took the caucus staff into the community meetings in Mayo, Watson Lake and Haines Junction. Everybody went in a big bus and they doubled up in the hotel rooms. The reason why I insisted that they go was because they should understand, too, what the issues are, who the people they are dealing with over the phone are in those communities and that this would be an excellent opportunity for them to meet the people in the communities. And you know, nobody thought it was unjustified. We got nothing but support. We've got letters of support from mayors of the communities. We've got people saying that it's about time that everyone showed up. It's about time that people actually went to see them instead of us insisting that they come to see us and they regard it as being a major show of respect for them, for their community and for rural Yukon. I can tell the member if he wants to keep up the criticism, then I've already got my quotes, he doesn't have to say anything more. I've got what I need to have in order to make my case elsewhere, but I can tell him that it is a good thing for the caucus members and the staff to get into the rural communities. There should be more of that, frankly.

Mr. Ostashek: As long as the minister keeps looking at how he justifies his expenses through rose-colored glasses, I guess it just makes our job easier.

Mr. Speaker, just going back to Cordilleran, a little, I can remember the now Minister of Economic Development standing on this side of the House calling it a glorified cocktail party. Mocking it and mocking our involvement in it. Was that just political opportunism because they were in opposition?

Mr. Chair, the fact remains that this Government Leader is going around telling Yukoners to tighten their belts and is doing absolutely nothing to cut down on his own expenditures or the expenditures of his political staff. And it is resonating with the Yukon public, there is no doubt about it; we do get calls and we do talk to the public. So, if the minister wants to keep on doing it, that's fine, and we'll continue to keep on criticizing it in this Legislature.

Mr. Chair, I don't have a whole lot more questions for general debate. Maybe my colleagues here do.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, I'll be happy to address these issues with the member in rural Yukon, in fact anywhere in public. I think it is a useful discussion and there is definitely a difference of opinion as to how the government should conduct itself.

Having been a representative from rural Yukon for 10 years, I do know what people's sensitivities are, and as soon as I had an opportunity to show them more respect, I took it. Obviously that is receiving very spirited opposition from the member opposite, the Member for Porter Creek North. I am happy that he is opposed. This is not padding government expense accounts; it has nothing to do with that. As a matter of fact, the expenditures here are fairly modest. In terms of the amount of travel being taken, I think it should be more.

With respect to the government padding its budgets, I want to point out to the member that we have a much larger caucus than the member did, and the budget supporting that caucus is exactly the same as it was to support his caucus yet it was a smaller caucus.

So, I would point out to the member, once again, as I pointed out at length in the spring sitting, when it comes to taking care of one's self, the member opposite has it up on all of us.

Mr. Jenkins: I think, Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance, the Government Leader, is missing the point on the issue of travel in rural Yukon. It's needed and it's necessary when a party first comes to power. I just certainly have to question the size of the contingent that goes around to each community. You know, where one or perhaps two ministers can do the job and do the job on a first-hand basis, when you surround yourself with a whole entourage, then your feeling for the community is filtered, and it's filtered considerably, whereas on a first-hand basis the minister comes into contact with virtually everyone.

So, I guess what I'm hearing is the filtered version of what the minister has received in rural Yukon, and I don't accept his overview of what he's just suggested is necessary, and it's necessary on the grandiose scale that the Government Leader is undertaking - his travel in rural Yukon.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, on the record right now, I would challenge the member to debate this issue in his own hometown. Next time we get to Dawson, I will make a personal effort to invite the member.

The member didn't come to the meeting I had in Dawson the other day - or last month - but I'd like the member to come the next time, and I will debate this issue on his turf, and we will let the people there decide on his turf in his town what they think about ministers travelling.

And there were only three community trips which the caucus staff went on too, which was very much appreciated by the people in those communities. Most of the business travel for the ministers inside the territory was undertaken by the ministers themselves. Most of it is done that way, but there were a few community meetings which did involve all the caucus staff too, and it was very much appreciated by the community members. So, I'll be happy to debate that issue with the member.

Mr. Jenkins: I must remind the Government Leader that the issue has been debated in Dawson and ruled upon, and it will be debated three years hence again, and we'll look forward to that debate with the Government Leader, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, Mr. Chair, I do regret having sabotaged my candidate's campaign in Dawson. I told him that he couldn't be promising what the member who did get elected promised. I was not in a position to be able to give him the wish list that the member seems to think was realistic but was, of course, completely outrageous.

He did try, of course, making those requests in the Legislature within his first week of coming to the Legislature and put $60 million of requests on the table. Of course, now that reality strikes home, and it will be a very interesting election in three years from now.

But I won't wait for three years in terms of this debate, Mr. Chair. Why? Let's talk about it when we get to Dawson next.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I'd like to address questions to the Minister of Finance in general debate on this Executive Council Office. My questions come from the perspective of collection on receivables, if you will.

Earlier in this debate we had a discussion about Health and Social Services - the federal government owing the Yukon government $28 million. The Minister of Health and Social Services and I were having an informal discussion about this. Somewhere in that debate on $28 million or $25 million, it is $12 million out. The minister indicated $3 million has been repaid, $13 million is now undisputed. On the other $12 million, could the Minister of Finance just elaborate? I'm hearing from the other benches that this is an inappropriate question. I'll save it.

Could I ask the minister, then, to elaborate on this response? Earlier in his discussion of ECO, he alluded to costs that were 100-percent recoverable, and I was trying to find the exact reference. I believe it may even have been again to the LIMS project. Could the minister indicate, then, what is the repayment schedule? When these costs are 100-percent recoverable, do they come attached with the repayment schedule?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, I think the member was originally asking a question about the outstanding billings by the Yukon government to the federal government for aboriginal services. The deputy of Finance is not here but I can certainly get some information about that to the member.

With respect to the LIMS project, 100-percent recoverable means that we will, in this kind of item - or any recoverable item like this - we book the expenditure, presumably spend it, and we will receive that money, and it will be registered as being received in this fiscal year. So, it will be from the federal government. They will provide, essentially, the equivalent of a cheque in this fiscal year.

Ms. Duncan: Is there any exposure on the part of the Yukon government? Could the federal government say, "We don't approve of the way an expenditure was made" and refuse to pay that $300,000?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, a lot depends on what the expenditure is for and what the agreement is all about. Every agreement has a funding agreement attached - a technical document attached. In the case of implementation funding, there will probably be a fair amount of flexibility to what we consider to be an implementation project. When the land claim was negotiated, we negotiated a total dollar sum of what we could use to implement all our responsibilities under the claim. Whatever one thinks of that sum, the fact is that there's a fair amount of flexibility.

But there are other recoverable projects that we will undertake, where the work we agree to do that is recoverable is very specifically spelled out in a funding agreement, and we would have to live to the letter of that agreement. For example, a capital project that they may fund - we may agree to build a road on their behalf, as we used to do many times. We would have to build it to a certain standard, very specifically designed in order to receive the recoverable.

Ms. Duncan: So, this particular recoverable is part of that general implementation plan, then, and it is not specifically spelled out - the minister used the example of roads - that we must have this information system up and running and implemented, prior to receiving repayment?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, I believe that in the case of the implementation projects, the flexibility is more ours, but we draw down as we use it.

Mr. Cable: A couple of questions. The minister referred us to contract administration for the contracts in ECO, and suggested we go over there and indicated that was all right with him. Just a mechanical question here. Is he prepared to instruct the staff to provide whatever photocopying is reasonable in the circumstances, rather than us spend days there taking notes?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Sure, Mr. Chair, whatever's reasonable.

Mr. Cable: On the budgets for the commissions, there were some questions put to the minister the other day, and we indicated that we did not have extensive documentation on the budgets. What we do have is a one-page sheet, which adds up to $499,000, which was the amount in the main estimates, and a two-page sheet, entitled "commission cost", and it goes over the four commissions and has global figures.

Is there anything else available in greater detail? In particular, the first sheet that I referred to had a personnel entry of $211,000, and employee travel in Yukon, $91,690, employee travel outside Yukon, $80,870. Is there something in the budget that gives us some greater detail, a breakdown as between the various commissions? Is there documentation that relates to the expenditures to date under the various items?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I asked the department to pull some information that the member requested, and they put together an update on the budget and expenditures to mid-November. I can pass it around to the member.

Mr. Ostashek: I just have a couple more questions here that I could ask him in line by line, but I'll ask him in general debate.

Intergovernmental relations and that includes the Ottawa office - are there any changes to the Ottawa office or are there any contemplated changes?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There is no change to the plan that I have indicated to the member. There is a recruitment that's underway for a staff member at the Ottawa office. That's a public service standard recruitment. I'm still contemplating what we might do in order to find some support for who may lobby government caucuses, or at least inform them of what we're doing, which I think is going to be an important issue for us or an important task for us in the coming months, particularly around the subject of devolution. I have not yet come to any conclusions about the best way to acquire that service.

Mr. Ostashek: Which position is being advertised for in Ottawa right now?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Say that again.

Mr. Ostashek: The minister said that there was one position being recruited for now. Which position is being recruited for now?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The position that's being recruited for now is a position that was held by Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant has moved to a Finance position in Ottawa.

Mr. Ostashek: The Bureau of Management Improvement, I see, has given back some money here. What is the Bureau of Management Improvement doing now? What are their tasks right now?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, as the member knows, it is largely the internal audit service and, as the member can see, it is returning $16,000. Generally, the returns here are staff vacancies and some internal economies. So, there is no change to the basic function. The director of internal audit has still not been recruited. The internal auditor is filling that position as we speak. There is some private contract work to local accounting companies to do some of the audit work.

They still nominally oversee the service improvement program, I think it was called. There has been no further activity in this area. I asked some time ago as to whether or not there were any new suggestions for improved efficiencies and they'd indicated not for the last couple of years, but they still nominally are responsible for that program as well.

Mr. Ostashek: I'd just like to ask the minister this: do they have a workplan for this fiscal year that the minister could table for us to have a look at?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, Mr. Chair, I think I might be able to get a workplan or a suggested workplan for next year too, and I could table that as well.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, on a similar issue, in the spring when we were discussing the budget, I asked the Government Leader about the service improvement program, and in response to my question, the Government Leader indicated that following the hiring of a new director of the Bureau of Management Improvement, there will be a review of the service improvement program. What stage is that review at?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, in the first instance, as I just mentioned, we have not hired the new director. We have had some discussions internally. I have had some discussions with the department respecting the program and what might be done to actually resurrect the program or to give some outlet for people to make suggestions beyond the simple suggestion box, which is something that people can do at almost any time. So, those discussions are underway.

Mrs. Edelman: Well, that's good to hear, Mr. Chair, because now there is a $12-million shortfall, and it's probably time to ask the people who work in the system every day where the kindest cuts should be.

Now, in B.C., they are under the employee suggestion program, and in the City of Whitehorse there is a cash incentive program. Is the cash incentive program part of the review of this service that the Government Leader has indicated that he is already undergoing?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: All options - not all options, but a good array of options - are being considered. There is certainly a lot of information on the record in the departmental files, because the service improvement program was only initiated a few years back. Presumably, due to the publicity, while it had a fair amount of activity within the first few months, it seemed to die off quite dramatically. It has simply been moribund since then, but there are various options being considered, indeed.

Mrs. Edelman: To a certain extent, I sort of understand why that interest has waned. Over the years, there have been a number of suggestion systems that have come and gone. People have filled out questionnaires, they've done surveys and they've attended brainstorming sessions, and all of these methods have been unsuccessful because nothing's ever come of the good suggestions that those employees have given, generally speaking and, after a while they've stopped giving them.

So what would this government do to make sure that employees are included in the decision-making process to effectively save and spend taxpayer dollars?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As I just said, Mr. Chair, we're reviewing the situation. We will be in a position to make some changes, presumably. If the member has some ideas about how she thinks the program could be improved or how suggestions can be received, handled or managed, I'd be more than happy to listen. I'm here.

Mrs. Edelman: Well, in the spring I gave the Government Leader the complete outline of the B.C. program, which has been tremendously successful and saved millions of dollars for the Province of B.C., so it would be one of my suggestions that certainly they might want to look closely at that particular program.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I thank the member for that, and I'll certainly re-read her remarks. If she has anything to add, I'll take that into consideration.

Chair: Not seeing any further general debate, we will go to the book.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair: Is there general debate?

On Cabinet and Management Support

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I thought I'd just stand when the item is of a moderately large size, just to give an explanation.

Briefly, this is a decrease in salaries - a savings in salaries, unfilled positions, including a number of positions in this particular branch. There are also some savings with respect to the budgeted amount for travel contracts and supplies.

Cabinet and Management Support in the amount of an underexpenditure of $66,000 agreed to

On Land Claims Secretariat

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The member opposite was looking for an explanation. It's the same. The reasons were staff vacancies in this case.

Mr. Ostashek: The minister has increased a number of negotiating tables, I believe, at the land claims. Has there been an increase in staff? What's the total land claims staff contingent at land claims? Can the minister bring back a paper laying out how many people are in the Land Claims Secretariat now?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Chair, I only have one copy of this and the member can have it. It's the organization chart for the Land Claims Secretariat. If he asks any questions, I'll have to get another copy.

Mr. Ostashek: For the public record, has there been any change in the amount of people at Land Claims Secretariat?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: No. We've recruited all the people that we said we were and I believe that it's fully staffed.

Land Claims Secretariat in the amount of an underexpenditure of $16,000 agreed to

On Intergovernmental Relations

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, we've added $56,000 to intergovernmental relations in order to support the pace of the devolution negotiations that are requiring more time and attention. And, of course, this is a branch that is leading the devolution discussions for the government.

Intergovernmental Relations in the amount of $56,000 agreed to

On Policy

Policy in the amount of $38,000 agreed to

On Public Communications Services

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, there are two basic reasons for the reduction: first of all, vacancies, and also there were, at one time, two directors in this branch - one was public communication services and the other one was French language services - and there is one director fulfilling both functions now.

Public Communications Services in the amount of an underexpenditure of $73,000 agreed to

On Bureau of Management Improvement

Bureau of Management Improvement in the amount of an underexpenditure of $16,000 agreed to

On Bureau of Statistics

Bureau of Statistics in the amount of an underexpediture of $5,000 agreed to

On Office of the Commissioner

Office of the Commissioner in the amount of an underexpenditure $4,000 agreed to

On Cabinet Offices

Cabinet Offices in the amount of an underexpenditure of $5,000 agreed to

Chair: Are there any questions on the recoveries?

Operating and Maintenance Expenditures in the amount of an underexpenditure of $91,000 agreed to

On Capital Expenditures

On Land Information Management System (LIMS)

Land Information Management System (LIMS) in the amount of $300,000 agreed to

Chair: Are there any questions on the recoveries?

Mrs. Edelman: I'm sorry I didn't hear, did the Chair say that O&M recoveries was $81,000 or $91,000? I know it says $81,000, and I could have sworn that the Chair said $91,000.

Chair: I didn't state a figure for the recoveries. I merely asked if there were any questions on them. The $91,000 reduction is for the total O&M expenditure, on page 22 of the book.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chair, just briefly, the $81,000 recovery is $80,000 for two new renewable resource councils, and the $1,000 is provided to the statistics branch.

Capital Expenditures in the amount of $300,000 agreed to

Executive Council Office agreed to

Community and Transportation Services

Chair: We'll go now to Community and Transportation Services. Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Please allow me to provide the highlights in the Supplementary Estimates No. 1 for the Department of Community and Transportation Services.

Estimated expenditure for operation and maintenance has decreased by a net of $650,000. This net decrease represents a gross decrease of $961,000, offset by a projected revenue increase of $275,000 from the ore haul route and other recovery increase of $36,000.

I just read the first paragraph of the speech. Maybe I could start over for the benefit of the critic opposite, who just showed up.

Please allow me to provide the highlights in the Supplementary Estimates No. 1 for the Department of Community and Transportation Services.

The estimated expenditure for operation and maintenance has decreased by a net of $650,000. This net decrease represents a gross decrease of $961,000, which is offset by a projected revenue increase of $275,000 - and that's from the ore haul route - and other recovery increase of $36,000.

Mr. Chair, the gross reduction of $961,000 represents 1.5 percent of the department's base operation and maintenance budget. As the members are aware, this 1.5-percent reduction has also been applied to other departments in order for the government to deal with priorities that emerged in the areas of health and education.

A substantial portion of the reduction has been sourced from our maintenance budget for highways. The department will continue with this planned reduction on the highway maintenance budget to the extent that our mandated responsibilities for the safety of the travelling public are not compromised.

In addition, funding has been retained to cover increased expenditures expected as a result of the Faro ore haul. As I outlined earlier, these costs are offset by increased revenues from bulk haul fees.

Non-discretionary items, such as grants and contributions, remain at our main estimate level. As well, the reduction of O&M will not have an impact on the level of the department's full-time equivalent positions.

Operation and maintenance recoveries have increased by a net of $36,000 to provide for increased expenditure funding for sports groups, as recommended by the Yukon Recreation Advisory Committee.

The department's projected capital expenditure has increased by about $2.4 million, and this increase consists of revotes required for capital projects carried over from the previous year totalling $3.1 million, which is offset by expenditure reduction of about $700,000 on various other projects. The total revote funding requested is about four percent of the 1996-97 improved capital budget, which is compared to an average of six-percent revote for the preceding years.

The projected capital recoveries are lower than the main estimate by about $771,000, and this reduction in recoveries is largely due to reductions in land development and corresponding reductions in the 1997-98 fiscal year in recoverable expenditures under the strategic highway improvement program.

Mr. Chair, I would be glad to provide details on the specifics if the members have questions on the supplementary, which I am sure they do.

Thank you.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, it's interesting to note that there has been a reduction in the O&M costs of the department, and while usually that is commendable, it's been at the expense of highway maintenance, and I do have some concerns that it has been an across-the-board reduction in maintenance of 1.5 percent.

Now, I can understand if it is a reduction because of the snowfall or less requirement for certain areas because they're up to standards, but such is not the case, and anyone living in rural Yukon can attest to the decrease that we are experiencing in the highway maintenance program in our respective areas.

And I was just noticing the trend the last number of years as to the reduction in highway maintenance. When is this going to bottom out, or is it this government's policy to not concentrate on highways and get right out of the business altogether, it almost seems, as is the case with mining roads in the Mayo and Dawson area. The amount of maintenance that these roads received this last summer has been virtually non-existent compared to the last four or five years, Mr. Chair.

So, I'm just wondering if the minister could provide his comments as to whether we have bottomed out as far as reductions in highway maintenance is concerned, and what the trends are going to be from here, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, as the member opposite puts it, have we bottomed out - I'm not sure if that's the correct language to use. The department is certainly cognizant that we had to trim 1.5 percent and we have no plans to do that at the jeopardy of the travelling public or at the expense of the health and safety of the travelling public. We are certainly working to perform this year's winter maintenance budget for normal winter conditions and that is the bottom line on it.

Mr. Jenkins: I guess that leads to another point, or another way of looking at the reduction in highway maintenance - are we maintaining those roads to a standard that won't jeopardize life or safety, or are we just not maintaining roads and saying we're not maintaining them so there's no need to conform to any life safety standards because they're out of the loop with respect to mining roads in the Duncan Creek and Dawson area? Could the minister provide his comments there? There's less and less, to the point that there's no maintenance being done on a number of these roads. You can hide behind it and say, "Yes, we're not doing anything so we don't have to concentrate on maintaining them to a certain standard." Is that the case, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, no. I'll just reiterate that no, we are looking for this winter and for winter conditions, and this supplementary budget speaks to the conditions that will be coming up this winter. So, there is no change in policy from the situation that the member opposite has stated regarding the Duncan Creek roads or the mining roads in general. These roads or highways that I'm speaking of are the main transportation corridors that, I guess you'd say, are normally open throughout the duration of the winter months.

Mr. Jenkins: I wish the minister were correct in his overview. All of these roads are virtually closed at this time of the year. There's very, very little, if any, maintenance going on on them. What I'm referring to is the maintenance on these roads over the course of the summer mining season that was curtailed to such an extent as to being non-existent. What I'm seeking from the minister is his assurance that some maintenance is going to take place on these mining roads.

Now, the mask - or the shield - that the minister is hiding behind is he's going to maintain his highways to a standard that will not jeopardize the life and safety of those travelling on them, but what is happening, on a number of these roads, there's no maintenance whatsoever, and the government just says, "We're not maintaining them, we haven't been maintaining them, and we don't have any responsibility for life safety," and that's the message that's coming across. Is this the case, Mr. Chair? Where do we stop?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Chair, the shield that I am not hiding behind is, as I've stated currently. We are going to be maintaining the roads to a normal condition - the main highways. I do believe that looks after the pertinence of what is contained within the supplementary budget.

Now the member opposite is asking me, are there going to be improvements to the mining roads or the policy for the mining roads, for wherever it may be within the mining community - whether it's in the Mayo or Dawson area, I guess it doesn't much matter. I believe that is where the member is coming from.

Certainly, in this day of lessening budgets - I guess if I could say it in that way - we have to spend wisely and we have to try and get the best bang for the buck, so certainly I cannot guarantee that we're going to be bringing certain roads - whether it's mining access roads - up to a better standard, but certainly we're going to continue with the program, as we have, to enable the roads to be traversed, if I can say it in that way.

Mr. Jenkins: I guess we're not looking for a better standard for these roads, Mr. Chair. What we're looking for is that the routine maintenance that was normally accorded these routes be continued rather than curtailed. On the one hand we have the Minister of Economic Development going around the world and going around North America touting the opportunities for mining opportunities in the Yukon. Then we have the Minister of Community and Transportation Services - he won't even open the highways into the mining areas in the spring, let alone maintain them after they're open. So, just where are we at?

When are we going to get these routes maintained to a consistent level? Each spring, it's brought up in the House that we have to open these routes and the government is more and more reluctant to do so. It's impeding business. It's impeding one of the major contributors to the Yukon economy: the mining industry. This impediment is a heck of an impediment, Mr. Chair, and I would urge the minister, if he has such a surplus in his budget, to reconsider his position with respect to access to the mining districts, specifically Mayo and Dawson.

Could the minister give the House that assurance, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: First of all, let me say, Mr. Chair, that there is no surplus - absolutely is no surplus - within the Community and Transportation Services budget. What we are doing though, working in concert with my colleagues at the Cabinet level, at every level, whether it's Ec. Dev. or Health or Education or Renewable Resources, is working toward the implementation of our agreed-upon plan.

Now, with that set aside, I do believe that what the member opposite is asking for is maybe earlier openings and more maintenance. I can let the member know that I would be more than willing to look at these on a case-by-case basis so that we do not impede business. That's not what we're here for and I don't even like the allusion or somebody alluding that we are here to impede business, because we're certainly not. I will sit with the member opposite and look at it on a case-by-case position so that we might be able to keep up with our campaign promises, and exactly what we said we're going to do, we will do.

Mr. Jenkins: Whether the minister likes it or not, his approach to the maintenance on these routes has been an impediment to the mining industry, and it continues to be, unless his department establishes a firm policy as to when the majority of these routes will be opened in the springtime and to what standard they will be maintained over the course of the mining season.

Now, I don't know how many times I have to repeat that, but that is the issue before us - that access to the mining areas has to be done on a consistent basis, and these roads have to be maintained to a uniform standard. There has been a lessening of that standard this year, and a considerable lessening of the standard since, say, two years ago or the previous four or five years, Mr. Chair, and I would urge the minister to reconsider his position on that area.

Now, I welcome the opportunity to sit down with the minister and go over it on a case-by-case basis, but it's in the springtime; it's opening the Sixty Mile road; it's opening the road around the Granville loop; and it's opening the Duncan Creek road. It's the same year after year after year, Mr. Chair, and the minister is just avoiding the issue and hiding behind a facade of life safety, but we have to put people to work in Yukon, and we cannot put people to work in Yukon unless these roads are maintained to a certain standard - and consistently to a certain standard - and opened up in the springtime at virtually the same time, unless there's a requirement to open them up somewhat earlier.

So, I'm just looking for those assurances from the minister, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, let me first of all again correct that I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm certainly here to work in concert with my colleagues from Economic Development and other areas, who are working stringently to provide new opportunities for Yukoners in the area of economic development and, in some cases particularly, in the mining industry.

I will sit with the member opposite and work on a case-by-case basis so that we can work in concert, and we will not be an impediment to business, if I may.

Mrs. Edelman: To get back to the 1.5-percent reduction in O&M budget, one of the things that I've often wondered about is why it came off road maintenance. Now, there have been some problems with operational costs in the Department of Community and Transportation Services. One's heard rumours over the years about people who drive their time sheets in from a certain outer municipality, rather than faxing them in, like the other government departments do. When was the last time an operational audit was done in the department? Is there another one coming up? If not, basically, why not? If you're looking at cutting costs, this is a great way to do it.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, the only time that the department would have to drive in from outlying communities, regarding communication, is if the fax lines, or telephone lines, or something, were down. I sincerely believe that that is a very rare occurrence, and I'll leave it at that. Each year, though, certainly, we are audited by the Auditor General and do work within that process with the Auditor General.

Is that what the member opposite meant? Okay, please clarify it for me.

Mrs. Edelman: What I'm speaking about is an operational audit, which is very different from a financial audit. This is something that a lot of businesses do, if they're having problems with cashflow, or if they're having problems with their overhead, is they'll do an operational audit. It's also very typical for some government departments to do that on a regular basis, if they have funding coming from other sources, for example - like the federal government - to do an operational audit. It makes sense, because unless the department is divine, it can always do with some sort of improvement.

What I'm saying to the minister, then, is it might be possible to do an operational audit to find ways to save money, and probably save money so that there's less of a cut to road maintenance. All I'm saying is that they might want to consider doing an operational audit in that particular department.

Another issue that comes up over and over again is the issue around the sale of lots. Earlier in this session, I asked the minister about relaxing some of the restrictions on building on some of the lots that haven't been sold, particularly the ones that have been in inventory for a long period of time. I also asked the minister about considering discounts on land, similar to the discounts that they did in Porter Creek C in the early 1990s. I've never received a response back from the minister on that particular issue, and I'm wondering if he has had any thoughts in the meantime about the sale of lots and ways to get them out of inventory and into the tax base, so we can raise some money for municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, thank you for taking the time to clarify the operational audit for me. I hear the member opposite and certainly will take into light the member's comments on it. As you know, we like to think, as managers, that we do strive to be better money managers as we evolve. So, certainly the comments will be taken to heart and we will see how much we can work within that, but I would like to state here that it is ongoing, good management practices that we'd like to continue to work with. I guess that could be certainly argued, member to member.

Certainly on the sale of lots, as the member opposite has asked for, I think in a week or two weeks - I'm sorry I can't remember the exact date, but it is in the system right now and we are getting back to it and treating it as casework. We're thinking some good thoughts on it. It has triggered good thought and we will be getting back to the member as soon as possible.

Mr. Jenkins: Just to explore another area with the minister with respect to the capital side of his department, could the minister indicate the number of full-time employees he has in the engineering and planning department who deal with capital projects or capital undertaking?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: That is information I do not have right at my fingertips. I will certainly have to get that information back to the member.

Mr. Jenkins: Where we are heading is - if one looks at the capital that is going to be spent within the Department of C&TS on highways and bridges in the next fiscal year and in the last fiscal year, it is down. It's going down at an alarming rate.

The information I have is that we will be very, very fortunate if any funds flow from the U.S. government to Canada for the Shakwak project, and we'd be very fortunate if those funds flow in the 1999 fiscal year.

Has the department given any consideration - and I'm aware of the ballpark number of FTEs within that department - to the justification of maintaining the strength at its current level, given the amount of capital projects that the department will be undertaking in, let's say, the next two years.

Can the minister provide some justification for maintaining the department strength at the level it currently is or is there something on the horizon that we're all not aware of; for example, that there's going to be a major announcement of bridge building over the Yukon River and a few other highways being chipsealed and upgraded?

Where are we heading, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, certainly I can justify the department's FTEs, as I'm sure the member opposite will accept. We are doing very hard political work, my Government Leader and myself, and with engineers within the department at their level in stridently working to ensure that we keep a continual flow of Shakwak dollars. Now, if that is going to happen this year, it has yet to be seen, but I am somewhat optimistic that we might have something move. Is that just myself being optimistic? I'm not sure. But I would certainly say that we cannot just sort of fire out or have a lack of planning in the absence of money. We must continue the planning as we have and will until we complete the project.

So, it's a case of planning and, at the political level, continuing to do good work.

Mr. Phillips: I want to follow along that line of thinking. Mr. Chair, the now-Leader of the Government of the Yukon, when he was in opposition, was extremely critical of the Yukon Party for the funds we spent on our highways, knowing full well that much of the money was for the Shakwak project and some was from the federal government to upgrade the Alaska Highway. He made some comments about our government at some period of time being a government that likes to just spend money on roads and forgets about health and education. But the current Minister of Community and Transportation Services is also the current Minister of Tourism, and that minister is aware that the most negative comment in the last visitor exit survey was the condition of our highways. That was the most negative comment from our visitors.

So, I'd like to know from the minister where improvement of our highways stacks up with respect to priorities of this government, because the tourism industry is the second-largest industry in the territory and probably employs more people than any other industry in the territory, has a huge potential for growth.

I know the minister and I have lived in this territory for a long, long time, Mr. Chair, and we think our roads are great because we can remember when they used to be little gravel trails so now we figure they're just great highways. But my concern is that most of the people who travel here come from other countries. In Germany they have the autobahn and in the United States they have their major highway system throughout the United States. Everything's all paved, well-signed, well-marked, well-identified, so when they arrive here they are somewhat concerned with the condition of our highways.

So, although we think the highways are better than they were a few years ago, and they certainly are, it's very important to continue to upgrade the highways, because those people have higher expectations and those are the people that are going to go back to their friends or relatives and either tell them that it's safe to drive their RV to the territory or pick another spot because it's not so good.

So, I'd like to ask the minister where the priorities are of his department with respect to improving our roads, because we see criticism from his own Government Leader that the previous government spent too much money on roads, and we see that in the last budget they tabled in the House, a lot of the highway construction money was cut out of it. So, maybe the minister can tell us what we can expect in the future from this minister with respect to improving roads in this territory.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, I wasn't around, certainly, for the previous administration as a new minister or as critic, but as the colleague of mine has categorically stated over there, that is a completely false interpretation of what my Government Leader has said.

But let me say that this government will be making commitments and making thoughtful and deliberate commitments to the budget process so that we will not be holding up indu