Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, March 2, 1998 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

Are there any introduction of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling the Yukon College annual report for 1996-97 and the Yukon College financial statements to June 30, 1997.

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

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

, in view of the lack of product from the Energy Commission and the Development Assessment Process Commission, and the negative effect that such lack of progress has on investor confidence, these commissions be disbanded and the work assigned to interdepartmental working groups.

Speaker: Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

White River First Nation negotiators' memorandum

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and inform the House that an agreement has been reached with respect to the White River First Nation final and self-government agreements.

The negotiators' memorandum, signed last Thursday by the Yukon government and the White River First Nation and Canada, is an important milestone. I want to congratulate the White River First Nation on taking a significant step toward a land claims settlement and self-government for its citizens.

The White River final agreement was negotiated over a period of less than three years. This is the shortest time period required to date to complete negotiations of a Yukon First Nation final and self-government agreement. The White River First Nation final agreement was negotiated entirely within the framework set out in the umbrella final agreement, and reflects the aspirations and interests of the three governments.

In our view, it is entirely consistent with recent judicial decisions in respect of aboriginal rights and title, such as Delgamuukw.

It should be a matter of some pride to all parties to the negotiations that the umbrella final agreement addresses the legal and equitable claims of aboriginal people in the Yukon in a manner so consistent with these recent judicial decisions.

This government has clearly stated that the completion of all outstanding First Nation final and self-government agreements is of the highest priority. This negotiatiors' memorandum is a concrete realization of that commitment. It confirms a shift from negotiation of final and self-government agreements to completion of the more technical requirements, legal drafting, legal and technical review and implementation plans for both agreements.

All substantive issues between the parties to the White River First Nation final and self-government agreements have been settled. The agreements provide for 520 square kilometres of settlement land; monetary compensation of $11.4 million, in 1998 dollars; four special management areas, to be established at Scotty Creek, Wellesley Lake, Pickhandle and the Klutlan Glacier; the establishment of a renewable resource council for the White River traditional territory; a total allowable harvest allocation for moose and caribou; provisions for local hire and economic opportunities on government projects over $2 million and on private sector projects that create more than 25 full-time jobs, per year, in the White River traditional territory; and the government and the White River First Nation to work together to preserve the Tanana and Northern Tutchone languages.

The traditional territory of the White River First Nation overlaps that of the Kluane First Nation. This overlap must be resolved before the White River First Nation final and self-government agreements can be ratified by the parties. The two First Nations have been working together to find a solution to their overlap, and I look forward to a resolution of this matter in the very near future.

I want to thank the negotiators and lawyers for all the parties and, most important, the community, for all their hard work on these negotiations. I am confident that the agreement they have created will stand the test of time.

Thank you.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, the Yukon Party caucus, I, too, would like to congratulate the White River First Nation on taking this very significant step forward in the finalization of their claims. I know that there's a feeling of great accomplishment as these claims are settled and agreements are reached. All parties need to be commended for it.

I do have a couple of questions for the Government Leader that he may be able to answer for me in his wrap-up on this and, as the Government Leader is aware, there're still, I believe, five outstanding claims that have yet to be settled. I believe this government is on record as saying that they have a target date of the end of this calendar year for the finalization of all land claims. I would like the Government Leader, if he could when he's on his feet, to tell us if he believes that that goal can be met and all land claims will be finalized, or at least if the negotiations will be completed, by the end of this calendar year.

I also want to draw attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Government Leader's statement in here that he believes that the umbrella final agreement and the self-government agreement are consistent with the decisions in the recent court cases on aboriginal rights.

As the Government Leader is aware, there was a statement by the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations on the radio this morning that shed some question in this regard, or at least the First Nations have some questions in this regard and are even looking at the possibility of amendments to the umbrella final agreement.

I'm sure that statement, Mr. Speaker, has caused concern for a lot of Yukoners out there, so I would like to ask the Government Leader, when he is on his feet, if he could tell this Legislature and Yukoners if the government has sought a legal opinion on the ramifications of the recent court decisions on the umbrella final agreement and self-government agreement, and does the Government Leader and his government believe that there are no negative ramifications of these court decisions for our umbrella final agreement?

It would be a travesty, Mr. Speaker, if we were to start going backwards at this late a date in land claims settlements that have carried on for more than some 25 years in the Yukon. We need to have closure for these in as timely a manner as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and once again, congratulations to the White River First Nation.

Mr. Cable: The Liberal caucus also would like to extend its congratulations to the White River First Nation and to the other two governments - the federal government and the Yukon government.

I have a number of questions, some of which were just recently touched on by the leader of the official opposition.

The Government Leader says the memorandum is consistent with the recent judicial decisions in respect of the aboriginal rights and title, such as the Delgamuukw decision. It would be useful to determine whether the memorandum actually deals with it specifically, or whether it has simply been cleared as to its compliance with the Delgamuukw decision.

The question I'm asking: are there specific provisions in the White River First Nation agreement dealing with that decision?

We need some expansion, because if, in fact, there are specific provisions, then some of the other agreements may require those provisions be inserted in them.

There's a local hire provision that seems to say that - and I'd ask the Government Leader to clear this up - in relation to projects physically within the White River First Nation traditional area. It would be useful for the Government Leader to confirm that. The leader of the official opposition has asked questions about the comments this morning on the radio by the Grand Chief of the Council for Yukon First Nations. It would be useful to hear whether this government is prepared to consider the reopening of the umbrella final agreement, if in fact that's required by the ramifications of the Delgamuukw decision.

There was also the New Brunswick forestry case, which I asked the Government Leader questions about back in December, I think it was. He assured me and the House that that decision, which relates to log-cutting rights, I believe, on Crown land in New Brunswick, would have no effect on the umbrella final agreement. It would be useful to hear whether that is his present position, in view of the Delgamuukw case.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their comments and, certainly, on behalf of the Yukon government negotiators, I thank them particularly for recognizing their hard work as well as the hard work of the negotiators for the other two parties.

Clearly, land claims is a priority of ours, and this is physical proof of that, but we are interested in concluding the rest of the negotiations for the remaining five First Nations. I can tell the member that, with respect to the Ross River Dena, the Liard First Nation, the Carcross First Nation and the Kluane First Nation, we expect those negotiations to be completed by the end of the year - some earlier than that. With respect to Kwanlin Dun, we must speak to the other parties to determine, first of all, whether or not the First Nation will be funded for the purposes of negotiations and whether or not there is an opportunity for us to re-engage the Kwanlin Dun in the near future.

With respect to the Delgamuukw Supreme Court decision, we have taken the position, after receiving legal advice and reviewing the matter thoroughly, that the Yukon First Nation final agreements are, in fact, consistent with the description of aboriginal rights and aboriginal title set out in Delgamuukw. But, in fact, the First Nation final agreements are more comprehensive in their nature than even Delgamuukw, of course, particularly with respect to the provisions regarding self-government and participation in public government in traditional territories. So, in every material respect, we believe that the umbrella final agreement is the best possible negotiating framework for First Nations anywhere, and are negotiating agreements pursuant to the umbrella final agreement.

The White River agreement does not contain any special reopener clauses. No special reopener clauses have been inserted to anticipate Delgamuukw. This is an agreement pursuant to the UFA and we believe that, after the process of technical review and ratification, we will have an agreement that is final.

I think, in response to the issues raised by the Grand Chief, I would merely say that it would be responsible on her part to review all the implications of the Supreme Court case, and we should not take issue with that review.

We do believe that the negotiations pursuant to the umbrella final agreement are the best way to go. We believe that we can achieve settlements that meet the needs of all First Nations with the umbrella final agreement, and are intending to do so. As I say, the opinion we have received essentially states that the provisions of the legal decision - the Supreme Court decision - are consistent already with the UFA, and that it is for that reason that we are negotiating the land claims with those First Nations remaining.

Applause

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Education, mathematics testing

Mr. Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Education and it's concerning Yukon students' proficiency in math and problem-solving. There is some good news out there in relation to a national mathematics test for 13 and 16 year olds. Unfortunately, this good news is limited to Quebec and Alberta. In nation-wide test results released this week in the Globe and Mail, the Yukon finished below average for both 13 year olds and 16 year olds.

The minister will recall, last November, I questioned her about her plans to deal with the crisis in the Yukon education system when over 100 grades nine and 10 students out of 170 failed their first-term math exams. At that time, I called upon the minister to establish an independent inquiry to overcome the problems, but obviously the minister had done nothing, as these recent results have shown. Will the minister now agree that there is a problem in Yukon schools and will she agree to establish an independent inquiry to determine how to correct the situation?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, I have to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, to respond to the preamble from the member opposite, that I don't take the same dim view of the SAIP mathematics assessment results that the member opposite does. In fact, the test results, in describing the achievement over five different levels, show that Yukon students who participated achieved average performance in a number of the categories.

Mr. Phillips: It appears that the minister is ignoring the pleas from parents and others who think there is a concern in the education system.

The inquiry that I'm asking for doesn't have to be an expensive one or last very long, because the provinces of Quebec and Alberta have already got the answers, and the recipe for their success is to have a well-defined curriculum, teacher training and a history of testing.

If the minister won't establish an inquiry, will she at least consult with her provincial colleagues in Quebec and Alberta and follow their advice in order to improve the grades of Yukon math students?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: We continue to work on a collaborative basis with other jurisdictions in Canada. I think perhaps the member opposite should bear in mind that these tests may show the lack of results from the Yukon Party approach of the last four years. We are certainly working to redress this over the next 16 months.

In the component dealing with knowledge of math concepts, 65 percent of Yukon 13 year olds demonstrated achievement at the benchmark of level 2 or higher. These students performed exceptionally well and ranked third in Canada out of 17 jurisdictions. I think the member should be paying attention to all of the results.

Mr. Phillips: That's the problem. The Minister of Education is cherry-picking the results, Mr. Speaker. She's not looking at the overall results of our Yukon math students.

I'm asking the minister, Mr. Speaker, this question: would she consider looking at what Alberta and Quebec have done to improve their math marks, and would she consider doing the same for Yukon students, who deserve a quality education in this territory?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member should be aware that the high results obtained in Quebec are bearing fruit from a creative math program that they have introduced there. We do need to focus on problem-solving at an early age to achieve better results. The Yukon has introduced a new curriculum in math at grades K to 7 and 11 this year, and this new curriculum is problem-based, and that is a first step to address that area of concern.

Question re: Education, Robert Service School portables

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, we will follow that closely, because the New Democrats across the floor won't have anybody to blame in the very near future for these problems.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is again to the Minister of Education. As of January 18, the two portable classrooms that sit beside the Robert Service School in Dawson are in full contravention of the Department of Education's lease with the City of Dawson. As the minister is fully aware, the three-year agreement was signed between the two parties in an effort to provide a temporary solution to the long-standing space problem at the Robert Service School. It's my understanding that there have been meetings with the Mayor of Dawson, and a proposal has been presented to the minister that would allow the portables to stay in place until the end of the school year, at which time the department would be given six weeks to remove them.

Can the minister tell me if the government is prepared to enter into such an agreement and what plans there are at present with respect to the two portables?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I am certainly happy to have the member opposite asking that question, because I would like to put on the public record just exactly what the facts are in relation to the proposal from the City of Dawson about the portables that are sitting next to the school.

Mr. Speaker, the Mayor of Dawson proposed that the Yukon Department of Education pay more than twice market value for a number of lots that they would like to see transferred over to the Yukon government and brought in a several-page proposal that had not even been presented to the Dawson City school council before the mayor brought it down to the government.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have been working - I know that we have been working hard in making sure that the Dawson school council is involved and, at the present time, we're working toward a solution on the fact that the city has not been exactly cooperative with the government or the school council.

Mr. Phillips: The questions that I'm asking here today are to find out what the minister is going to do about it. My concern is that three years have passed and Dawson remains without a new school. Furthermore, it's looking like Dawson will not seek another school for about three years, because we've looked at the forecasts in the budget by the government and they tell us that it's Mayo and Ross River that are going to receive the next schools and Dawson's not even in the equation.

Mr. Speaker, there exists a space problem at Robert Service School. It's long term and growing and they are in desperate need of an immediate solution. Could the minister tell us if the government has prepared a contingency plan to address the problem of space if the portables are removed from the school and, if so, could she tell us what that contingency plan is?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, here's where there's a considerable difference between the member opposite and this government. This government sat down with school councils from around the Yukon and discussed the needs throughout the Yukon to look at what schools needed to be built and what kind of scheduling was feasible.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the member knows that it isn't in the plan to build a school in Dawson within the next three years. We're building a school in Old Crow this year. We're going to build a school in Ross River next year and a school in Mayo the year after that. Any change to take a school for Dawson City and move that forward on the agenda requires the cooperation and support of all of the school councils in the Yukon, and that's the way we would deal with it.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister isn't even following the recommendations of the rural study to start with. The question is, and I'll ask the question again because the minister didn't answer it: if they're not allowed to use the portables next year, what kind of a contingency plan does the minister have in place for those students? Are we going to line them up in the hallways? Are we going to put them in the woodworking room? Are we going to rent a hall somewhere in Dawson? What contingency plan is in place for the students who possibly could not have their classrooms come next fall?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the member's preamble is wrong. We have paid attention to the rural school facilities study and when the school councils gave us the benefit of their advice on the construction of school projects, they used the rural school facilities study. I'm the first to acknowledge that it was a helpful document, and we're using it.

We have an agreement ready for signature to extend the leases on the portables. If the City of Dawson does not wish to see that lease extended and if the school council doesn't want to see that lease extended, I put it to him that the students would be the ones who would suffer.

Question re: Crossroads, government consultation

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. About, let's see, about five years ago, there was a letter that went from the now Minister of Education, the Member for Mount Lorne, to the then Minister of Health and Social Services, the Hon., at the time, Willard Phelps. In this letter, the member talked about consultation with the board of directors about any decisions that are made by her department in respect of funding and programming regarding Crossroads, and she notes that "it is essential that Crossroads be given the opportunity to articulate their needs and concerns through a meaningful consultative process, in order to achieve a positive working relationship with your ministry."

Now, this morning, the Minister of Health and Social Services today was on the radio talking about how, indeed, his department had consulted with the board of Crossroads. If that is the case, I wonder if the minister could provide us with minutes of that meeting with the board, the dates that those meetings occurred - hopefully they were prior to the decision being made for the closure of Crossroads - and who exactly was present at that meeting.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well I think, first of all, we need to put the letter that the member refers to in context. That was at a time when NNADAP had announced that they were withdrawing financial support for Crossroads, and there was some question around what the level of funding would be, because what that would mean was that the Government of the Yukon would then bear the entire cost.

With regard to it, by my count, since November 5, 1996, and September 21, 1997, there have been no fewer than 17 meetings between representatives from my department and either the executive director, members of the board, the board, combinations of the executive director and members of the board. There have been a fair number of meetings with the executive director in this regard, but it does go back to November 5, 1996, and covers a whole variety of issues that involve such things as issues around programming, issues around intake, et cetera.

Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs. Edelman: No. This is my first supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that the minister will provide minutes of those meetings, because I would certainly like to see if there's any mention in those meetings about the closure of Crossroads.

There are now going to be two locations for alcohol and drug treatment in Whitehorse, and what we're doing, then, is splitting up what's actually quite a good team, particularly for group counselling, in alcohol and drug services. What I'm wondering about now is whether they're going to be hiring any more administrative staff in particular, or any other type of staff, for alcohol treatment programs and if any of those staff will come from the former Crossroads staff members?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: At this point, we're going to be delivering the service out of existing staff; however, we are not planning to hire any further administrative staff. There may be some avenues - and I emphasize "may" - for individuals within the existing Crossroads program, to be coming over to our new program. I'm not sure right now what the vacancy status is within ADS but I believe that this has been discussed - that individuals who meet the needs could perhaps avail themselves.

Mrs. Edelman: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what that was just all about. But it's my understanding, then, sort of, that the minister is sort of saying that maybe they will hire some new staff from the old Crossroads staff or maybe they won't - sort of.

Mr. Speaker, there is still a year left on the lease between the Crossroads society and the department on the Crossroads building, and it's my understanding that the society's not willing to let go of that lease. What is the department going to do about that?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I should emphasize that that building does belong to the government and it is based on the idea that we will be utilizing it for delivery of alcohol and drug programs, so my assumption would be that, on April 1, when our new programs go in, that's where they will be located.

Question re: Education, school achievement indicators program

Ms. Duncan: I have some questions for the Minister of Education regarding the scores by Yukon students in the recent school achievement indicators program.

Approximately 48,000 thirteen and 16 year old students throughout Canada wrote this national mathematics assessment in April 1997, and it included 300 thirteen and 16 year old Yukon students.

The head of the math curriculum studies at the University of British Columbia had this to say about the results: "Parents and others should be interested in finding out why Quebec and Alberta did so well in these tests and seeing what would make sense in their jurisdiction." Would the Minister of Education indicate what steps the Department of Education is taking to find out what would make sense for Yukon students?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: First of all, I do want to respond to the member's preamble. Unlike other Canadian jurisdictions, where a sample of their students participate in the assessment, all 13 and 16 year old Yukon students participated in SAIP testing; therefore, the results published in the Globe and Mail on the weekend do not reflect clearly how well Yukon students actually performed.

In the component dealing with math concepts, 65 percent of Yukon 13 year olds demonstrated achievement at the benchmark of level 2 or higher. These students performed exceptionally well.

The results in the problem-solving component were not as high as we would have liked to have seen. As I have indicated to previous questioners, we want to take steps to address this area of concern, both through new curriculum work and through ongoing inservicing available for teachers.

Ms. Duncan: Well, the minister is awfully defensive about this issue, instead of finding out what's right for Yukon children.

One of the jurisdictions that scored poorly was British Columbia. Their students received below average marks in problem-solving. In content, 16 year olds were below average and 13 year olds were below average. The Yukon currently follows the B.C. curriculum, as we all know. Indeed, the government's own website page says: "Yukon follows the British Columbia curriculum in all subject areas. This curriculum is sometimes modified, with departmental approval, to reflect local needs and conditions."

Does the minister see curriculum modifications to enhance Yukon students' results in math?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Curriculum modifications are something that the department and the teachers work on on a regular basis. We will continue to provide materials and inservicing for teachers throughout the school system for the 1998-99 school year. We want to work as hard as we can to make sure that students are getting good instruction and that they're developing good skills.

Ms. Duncan: Saskatchewan, which also ranked below the national average - which also has an NDP government, by the way - has already launched curriculum changes in elementary and secondary schools. However, the NDP Minister of Education in Saskatchewan has also said that her province now has to move the agenda along to implement changes faster.

The elementary curriculum changes the Yukon government has implemented have problems as well. The teachers, parents and school administrators are saying that the problem with the new elementary math curriculum is that it's language based and it's not working.

Does the minister intend to meet with school councils, teachers, the YTA and parents to deal with the Yukon math curriculum?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan: Right, and that's the problem.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to be meeting with the Yukon Teachers Association and the Yukon school councils and to look at ways that we can improve our math programs. The superintendents and the curriculum consultants will continue to meet with each of the schools to discuss program organization, student and teacher assistance, and assessment practices.

Question re: Legal, estates of common-law partners

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question today for the Minister of Justice. It's regarding Yukon law for the estates of deceased persons that were in a common-law relationship.

Mr. Speaker, there have been some unfortunate situations arise and needless hardships created by the archaic state of Yukon laws in this area.

Individuals caught in this situation are hamstrung because of this unworkable, unwieldy legislation that prevents them from having access to the property of their common-law spouse.

Can the minister advise the House if she will be reviewing these laws this year in order to eliminate the difficulties for aggrieved persons dealing with the loss of a loved one caught in this legal boondoggle?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be looking at this. There are a number of bills that relate to family property, including the Family Property and Support Act and the Intestate Succession Act. We're aware of some difficulties that have arisen and are looking at them.

Mr. Jenkins: One of the pieces of the legislation involved, as the minister clearly identified, is the Intestate Succession Act. It has a lengthy process, and the minister has indicated that she will agree to present amendments to the act - I am taking it that way. The stringent time factors and time frames in this act are one of the major hurdles to overcome, and I'm hoping she could indicate to the House that she's ready to present improvements to this legislation that are already in place in other Canadian jurisdictions. Is the minister prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, what I indicated in response to the first question is that we are prepared to look at what kinds of legislative changes may be needed. We are consulting with the community, including the legal community, on these changes and may have a package available later in our term.

Mr. Jenkins: The other piece of legislation is the Dependants Relief Act, and it contains a definition relating to common-law relationships, which is also extremely outdated, and I would ask the minister to bring forward amendments to this legislation as well, Mr. Speaker. I'm looking for some commitment from the minister to bring forth these amendments in the fall 1998 sitting of this Legislature.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the legislative framework involves a number of bills. This is one reason, when we look at introducing amendments to the Family Property and Support Act, that we accepted the request for further consultation to look at the implications and all of their complexities. I am not giving a time commitment on when legislative changes may come forward. I am indicating that we will be working with the communities to look at what changes are needed.

Question re: Old Crow school

Ms. Duncan: I have some questions for the Minister of Government Services regarding the Old Crow school; specifically the construction of the new school.

The minister indicated in this House late last week that the final design would be in government offices last Thursday. The design was to be reviewed over two weeks and then an approximately four-week period for tendering, which puts the tender out about April 3.

Could the minister indicate for the record what date the tender will be published, what date it will close and when the anticipated award date is?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I can't provide that at this time, but what I will do is try to get it as soon as I possibly can. We want to go through the - there are some other issues involved, not the least of which is trying to take a look at some ways we can maximize the economic benefits for the people of Old Crow. Our project manager is meeting today with the Vuntut Gwitchin leadership to discuss some of those issues.

Just on the same point, he was able actually to drive in on the road and some of the first crews came in on the weekend on that road.

Ms. Duncan: What I was asking the Minister of Government Services for was approximate tender dates, which he tried to give late last week in the House. Assuming that last week's information was somewhat correct, we're looking at the earliest being about May 15 before construction crews could start - by the time the contract's awarded and mobilization by the successful bidder.

The minister stated last week also that the goal was to have the school done by the end of the year: December 1998. The Old Crow school is an L-shaped building about 32,000 square feet. Building this size of building in Old Crow in about six months, according to some Yukon contractors, is a Herculean task, if not impossible. Others say that it can be done in that time frame if all the pieces are in place and there are no unforeseen circumstances, like the right beams having to be made and then transported to Old Crow.

Is it the minister's intention to have the completion date in the tender as December 1998 or does the minister intend to leave himself some wriggle room and have an alternative completion date?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Our preferred date is still the end of the year. Of course, we have no control over various and sundry circumstances, but I can tell the member that we are doing everything we can to make that date. This week, the piling equipment will be brought in and that particular aspect of the contract will be undertaken.

So, basically, whoever arrives will (a) have certain advantages, one being that the foundations will be in place; (b) most of the materials will be assembled there, so it will be a matter of moving from there.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be refusing to give any kinds of dates for awarding tenders or whether or not the date for completion will be in the final contract. Right now, the children in Old Crow are working through difficult and crowded circumstances.

Is the minister's department recommending a staged type of construction for this L-shaped school, whereby students might have a gym available first, for example, and then gradually move into the classrooms? Can the minister provide us information on that?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: No, Mr. Speaker. We're looking at completion of the building. I should emphasize that all tenders do have completion dates and we believe that our contractors can meet that goal. Of course, the member has murmured, "Will we put that date in the contract?" Of course that will be put in the contract.

Question re: Capital project, RCMP compound

Mr. Phillips: We've heard, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House that there is a capital project in the planning, which is to be built behind the RCMP headquarters, and could the Minister of Justice tell this House if there is such a project? Does it exist, and who is planning it, and who's funding the project, and how much is the project for?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the member's question under advisement. I have a meeting scheduled with the RCMP to discuss any plans that they may have for a construction of that type.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, we understand that such a project may go to tender very shortly. Is the minister telling this House today that she's not aware of any planned capital project by the RCMP in their compound behind the existing building - she has no idea what it's all about, and no idea that they're going to build anything - and that's what her meeting's going to be about in the future?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not clear on what ideas the member opposite has, or what intelligence the member opposite has that he's bringing forward to the House. What I can tell the member is, as I said in response to his first question, that I have a meeting scheduled with the RCMP to discuss their budget of next year and any capital plans that they may have in the works.

Mr. Phillips: I don't want to let the minister go that easily. Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that the minister or her department are not aware at this time of any capital projects that may take place on the RCMP compound and, if there is such a project planned, are there any O&M implications to the Government of the Yukon with respect to ongoing operations of any new facility that's going to be built there? And, what's the facility going to be for?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: First of all, let me assure the member I'm not going anywhere. I'm right here. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite hasn't brought forward any facts. He's brought forward speculation. I'm telling him that I will provide him with information when I have it.

Question re: White River First Nation land claim agreement

Mr. Cable: I have some more questions for the Government Leader on the White River First Nation agreement.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please. Order. The Speaker cannot hear.

Mr. Cable: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the ministerial statement and the replies and the questions that were asked, I asked the Government Leader whether the $2 million project local hire provision that was in there related solely to projects physically situated in the White River traditional territory. I wonder if he could confirm that that, in fact, is a correct reading of his ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, that is a correct reading of the ministerial statement. The ministerial statement is also consistent with the final agreement - the negotiators' agreement - and, indeed, pursuant to chapter 22, the local benefits provision applies to only projects within the traditional territory of the White River First Nation.

Mr. Cable: One of the other questions I asked the minister for was an enlargement and some clarification of the statement that the agreement - "the memorandum is entirely consistent with recent judicial decisions with respect to aboriginal rights and title, such as the Delgamuukw decision." What I believe he told me and what I think I understood he told me was that the agreements did not require specific provisions in them to ensure that. Is that, in fact, the case?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes.

Mr. Cable: Would the minister provide a copy of the memorandum to this House so that we can see how the negotiations were carried out and what we can expect by way of concluded agreements?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the tabling of the memorandum will demonstrate to the member how the negotiations were undertaken, but perhaps with Sherlock Holmes-like care he can draw conclusions from the final negotiatiors' agreement and determine how those negotiations were undertaken.

I will undertake to report back with an answer to the member's question in detail, and I will table whatever I can, of course - whatever is standard practice to table. Certainly, if the member has any other questions he would like to ask of the government with respect to this, I can even get a briefing with the negotiators to go over the agreement with the member.

Speaker: Question Period has now elapsed.

Question of privilege

Speaker: On a question of privilege, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege in response to an aspersion cast upon me by the Government Leader in Question Period on Thursday, February 26, 1998.

The exchange can be found on page 2173 of Hansard, First Session, 29th Legislature, and occurred as follows:

"Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, we didn't have to raise expectations very far to promise that we wouldn't be calling First Nation leaders liars in the media. We have been able to keep that promise solidly.

"Some Hon. Member: Order.

"Speaker: Point of order has been called.

"Mr. Ostashek: The member knows that I never called a First Nation leader a liar. I ask that he retract that immediately.

"Hon. Mr. McDonald: I will not retract that, because the member full well knows, and there are transcripts to prove it,..."

Mr. Speaker, you ruled that a dispute outside the House bears no point of order, and while I accept your ruling on the point of order, I contend that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege, and accordingly am raising it at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Government Leader's remarks inferred that I have called First Nation leaders liars in the media, and that he had transcripts to prove it.

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly, addendum 1, "Guidelines for Oral Question Period," section 8 states: "A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House in that it must not contain inferences, impute motives or cast aspersions upon members within the House or out of it." Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Government Leader's remarks are in contravention of this guideline.

Further, the Government Leader's remarks are in breach of Standing Order 19(1)(h) and 19(1)(j), where a member will be called to order by the Speaker if that member (h) imputes false or unavowed motives to another member; (i) use of abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.

Remarks by the Government Leader inferring that I called First Nation leaders "liars" while pertaining to events outside the House have been introduced into the House in statements and language that are clearly unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

The inference that I called First Nation leaders "liars" in a term that the Government Leader has used both in and out of the House is patently false.

In October of 1995, there was a dispute between me, in my capacity as Government Leader, and Grand Chief Harry Allen concerning the progress of settling land claims. Mr. Allen made a statement that the Government of Yukon was deliberately stalling the land claims process and I said at that time that this statement was absolutely not true. There was a difference of opinion between the Grand Chief and myself as to the causes of the delays in the land claims process, as there so often is, irrespective of who is the Government Leader and irrespective of who is the Grand Chief.

As the Government Leader, I was representing the interests of all Yukoners while Grand Chief Allen was representing the interests of Yukon First Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I held the utmost respect for Grand Chief Harry Allen. He was a very distinguished Yukoner whose name should not now be used to give credence to allegations made against me by the Government Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government Leader to voluntarily withdraw his remarks prior to your ruling, or, failing that, to make the allegation that I called First Nation leaders "liars" with his documentary proof outside of these legislative precincts so that a judicial ruling may also be obtained.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Harding: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, we see no prima facie breach of privilege in this instance. Obviously, the member is grandstanding about a point that he feels very defensive about, and so he should, Mr. Speaker. It was readily apparent, to those observers in the Yukon who watched his very sad and unprofessional display of relationships with First Nation governments, that the situation was not conducive to positive, futuristic, government-to-government relations in this territory with First Nations governments.

In this House, when members are engaging in a stiff debate about important issues such as this, it is very important that members be able to speak of past events and be able to speak of past experiences and things that have taken place in the media and in the public on the floor of this Legislative Assembly.

In this case, the Government Leader did just this, and the Government Leader did not reference anybody's name. It was the member opposite who referenced names in this House, just in this argument that he is making on the question of privilege.

It is very important and key to the whole principle of democracy in this Legislature that members are free to point to events that have taken place outside of this House to give some context and some accountability, not just to the government, but also to the opposition, and particularly former governments, who set the stage for the debate that we are having today.

Mr. Speaker, that is not a prima facie case of breach of privilege in any way, shape or form. We would be willing, obviously, to concede that, in this case, the point was raised at the earliest opportunity, but we do not concede that there is any point for the simple reason that there is no prima facie breach of privilege - none whatsoever.

Thank you.

Speaker: Order please. The Chair will take this matter under advisement and provide the House with a ruling tomorrow.

We will proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker: Government bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 9: Second Reading - continued

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 9, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald. Adjourned debate, Mr. Cable.

Speaker: Member for Riverside. Continue with debate.

Mr. Cable: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things I've noticed in the last few months, and which I started to touch on the other day, was that I think it's safe to say that the Yukon economy is not very robust at the present time. Our main mine is down, the BYG operation is floundering through legal troubles and environmental troubles, and placer mining is in trouble.

What I've found in the street is that people are apprehensive.

The housing market is very soft, when one talks to real estate agents. Vacancy rates are up quite markedly in the apartments. While a good, healthy vacancy rate is good, of course, for tenants, when it crosses the line, we have investor confidence being reduced and future intentions being threatened with respect to the construction of new apartments.

The vacancy rate, for example, in Whitehorse, in December 1997, according to the stats branch January 1998 monthly statistical review, was 11.4 percent, as opposed to 6.9 percent in December 1996.

Building permits are down, also, from 1997 over 1996. If I've done my mathematics right, the building permits in 1997 were something of the order of $43 million, as opposed to $58.5 million in 1996.

Mineral exploration intentions are also down. We've heard the people in the Chamber of Mines and other people indicating that they anticipate a very substantial reduction with respect to mineral exploration.

The NDP government is not responsible for the world price of zinc or the world price of gold. It is not responsible for the BYG environmental problems. I'm reminded of the Member for Faro doing his Tom Jones act - his imitation of Tom Jones - where he says, "I'm not responsible." You could almost hear the music in the background. The NDP is not responsible for many of those things. But the NDP government is responsible for many of the things that are going on. They are responsible for many of those things that undermine investor confidence.

They are responsible, in part, for the lack of progress in land claims. The senior negotiating staff were rolled over rather unceremoniously during the early days of the NDP regime, and the corporate history, of course, that is carried along with the negotiating staff was moved elsewhere.

The NDP government is responsible for, in part, the lack of progress in moving the development assessment process forward. They're responsible for the speed with which the protected areas strategy moves forward and they're responsible for, in part, the gyrations relating to electricity rates and the lack of clear product in the policy area, particularly in those areas such as risk absorption and the rules relating to the Utilities Board - things that could be dealt with expeditiously. We don't need the grandstanding of 15 and 16 months to bring those issues to a conclusion.

Now I think lastly - and perhaps as importantly as anything else - the NDP government is responsible for the glacier-like pace of negotiations with public servants. With a large public service sector in the Yukon, the wage rates and benefits in the Yukon Territory public sector very much determine the wages and benefits that the private-sector employers will have to pay. When that issue is up in the air, of course, people's intentions remain up in the air.

I've heard from many people that they are nervous about this government's hand on the tiller at this time. They are nervous about the lack of fulfillment of the expectations raised by the NDP when the NDP was in opposition. They are nervous about the NDP's ability to set the stage for long-term job creation.

Now I think many items in the platform, I'm sure, had some wriggle room in, but what I'm hearing in the street is that the wriggle room is just too large. Wriggle room doesn't mean you walk away from commitments or from expectations.

So I have to say, Mr. Speaker, to support this budget, and in effect send a message of confidence in this government, would be a denial of what I am observing and what I am hearing from people in the street and the conclusions I have formed myself.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that, as with my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, I will not be supporting the government's budget.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I'm happy to rise and speak in support of this budget this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not surprised that the members for Porter Creek don't see a better way of government in the Yukon. The Member for Porter Creek North had his way in the Yukon for four years, and we know what it was: grade reorganization, excellence awards, the Whitehorse General Hospital project going to an Alberta contractor, inflating of the land development and road construction budgets, and many, many initiatives with absolutely no consultation with the public.

We saw public sector wage restraint legislation, and, Mr. Speaker, that way in the Yukon lost the confidence of the public.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased that I am by the way our budget delivers on our stated priorities. We are creating jobs, with over $70 million in capital expenditures, including a new school in Old Crow. The education capital budget includes over $1 million in school renovations to improve the physical plants in a number of schools, including $300,000 for F.H. Collins school upgrading.

There is almost $9 million for road construction and support for mining through the geoscience program, and a new $400,000 for land and mineral assessments.

There is $200,000 in increased tourism marketing funding.

Mr. Speaker, our public expenditures in school improvements isn't just a creation of jobs and building of schools. It also demonstrates our effective communications with school councils.

The rural school facility study is a helpful document that has informed and guided some long-range decisions on school construction. School council representatives from across the Yukon helped to decide the capital spending priorities. Mr. Speaker, people like the dialogue with government that is occurring between this government and the public. It's a better way; it's a real change.

The community development fund is also creating jobs. The Member for Porter Creek South doesn't like the community development fund, which is increased to $3.5 million in this budget. People around the territory like the community development fund, which allows them to work on projects that meet local priorities. I'm amazed that the opposition doesn't support permanent housing for the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre. That was achieved through the community development fund.

The community development fund supported Signpost Seniors, the Vuntut Gwitchin youth summer camp and the Dawson City Music Festival Association, youth centre repairs and youth recreation and leadership programs. We have worked in partnership with Crime Prevention Yukon, the Learning Disabilities Association of Yukon, the Yukon International Storytelling Festival, the Yukon Trappers Association, the Klondike Snowmobile Association, and a host of community agencies.

The community development fund has supported renovations to buildings to provide access for people with disabilities. That meets a very important commitment to human rights for people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing what we said we would do. We consulted with the public to revise - or might I say revive, Mr. Speaker - the community development fund, and we have put lots of people to work while improving the quality of life for Yukon residents.

The $3.5 million in the 1998-99 budget for the community development fund will create more jobs and community facilities, and that's a better way.

Long-range planning helps to make limited funds better spent. This government has already made real progress in developing long-range planning in a number of areas. We are planning now to build a new school in Ross River in 1999, and planning begins in this budget year for the Mayo school construction in the year 2000. We have set aside $200,000 for the planning of a Mayo school so that we can have the time to do planning in advance and build on schedule.

The government's budget also sets a foundation for the new millennium by putting aside money for longer term projects to address community priorities. This budget sets aside $1 million for recreational infrastructure in the City of Whitehorse, which plans to host games in 2007. By setting aside $1 million per year this year and into the next century, the Yukon government will contribute to facilities for athletes, young and old, and in a variety of sports and recreational activities.

We are also setting aside $1 million per year for the next nine years for a capital project in Dawson City. Capital funds are set aside for health centres and community nursing.

There is $9 million for major highway work, which will create jobs. It will also improve the Alaska Highway, the Campbell Highway and the Top of the World Highway. These road improvements will benefit residents and visitors alike.

There is $500,000 being set aside for secondary rural roads, and there are many of those in the Yukon, as our MLAs and ministers know, Mr. Speaker, because we do travel the highways and byways of the Yukon. We are out there on those highways and on those secondary roads meeting with the people who live in the territory.

The Member for Porter Creek North says the budget shows no vision. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I ran into a friend on the street after we had tabled the budget last week and they asked, "So, does the opposition like the budget?" And I had to say, "Well, guess what, the opposition doesn't like the budget." That's their job. They don't like the budget. It's not their budget.

But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our budget has vision. Our vision includes a priority for youth programming. We are budgeting $200,000 for a youth strategy, so we can improve community programs for young people. This, too, is a direct response to the voice of the people in ridings throughout the Yukon who see the value of youth recreation and leadership programs. We will expand youth programs through a variety of mechanisms. We will continue to involve young people themselves through the Youth Works Board, the Association of Community Youth Initiatives; we will expand youth employment initiatives; and we will continue to support the youth entrepreneurship centre, the youth investment fund, youth apprenticeships and a full range of educational, environmental, recreational and other youth programs.

Now, the opposition admits that they liked the youth strategy but then they say the budget has no vision and it's not a good budget. It is a good budget. The vision in this budget is to create jobs, is to link training and jobs, is to invest in our youth and to invest in our communities.

Training and jobs are closely linked. This budget makes $1.5 million available for training trust funds that will help provide Yukon people with skills that do translate into jobs. We have supported a training trust fund for the mining industry, for rural communities, and we are working on agreements to support agriculture, forestry and other economic sectors, including non-government organizations.

During this year, Mr. Speaker, we will also have a draft Yukon training strategy to take out for consultation with the communities to work to ensure that the training we plan for our citizens meets the needs. Training trust funds represent an investment that will continue to provide valuable skills and economic diversification opportunities in the territory.

Yukon College will receive $10 million again this year to support their operations and maintenance and we have signed a three-year agreement to provide the college with the financial stability to prepare their budgets in advance - despite the declining federal revenues in education funding.

The federal budget does not restore the Canada health and social transfer payments to previous levels. I will continue to work with my provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that the federal government respects education as a provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

I'd like to turn, for a moment, to some of the ways the Yukon government is supporting healthy communities. This government consults with the public and is prepared to make decisions. After community consultations, after numerous meetings between Health and Social Services and Crossroads, and after debate in this House on the need for action to mitigate the harmful effects of alcohol abuse in the Yukon, my colleague, the Minister of Health and Social Services, has introduced a new approach to drug and alcohol treatment that provides for more long-term support and encourages delivery of treatment services at the community level and with First Nations.

Mr. Speaker, we have the courage to try some new approaches, something the opposition parties urged us do in this House a few short months ago. In November 1997, we had a debate in this House and you know what the members opposite had to say then, Mr. Speaker? They were talking about what is wrong and why are we sending people from rural Yukon into Whitehorse or outside for alcohol treatment. If programs are developed at the local level, they are more responsive to local needs.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we agree with that. We want to design programs to better fit the needs, rather than rely solely on a model that does not meet every need. We have responded to community concerns, and that is a better way. We're offering a new program that includes a residential program, as has been offered in the past, but there is also a four-day medical detox program, a 12-day treatment program and 14 days of additional residential support if required. We are bringing in an aftercare program and we'll provide a continuum of care for 24 months.

There will be limited beds available for people who need a place to stay during treatment. The new program builds in components for support when there is a relapse. In addition to offering a new program, we can adopt a program to meet the needs of specific communities and First Nations. Part of our overall plan is to support community-based programs with redirected funds and to train First Nations people to deliver the treatment programs in their communities.

We're taking action on a problem that has been identified. We are following through on recommendations that have been made to us from the communities and that, too, is a better way.

The budget also contains new money for a crime prevention coordinator. We're going to continue to fund aboriginal justice and community justice forums. Considerable work on restorative justice initiatives will take place this year and, yes, that includes a discussion paper on policing and justice priorities, so we can move forward on that.

The opposition wants to criticize our government for making progress on the protected areas strategy. The Yukon Party criticizes the government while, at the same time, claiming that they support a protected areas strategy. The fact is, during four years in office, the Yukon Party did not deliver a protected areas strategy, even though they claimed to support it, and we intend to deliver.

We're not just going to pay lip service to a protected areas strategy. We have a better way to work with communities, to seek public input and to be brave and make decisions, as one citizen stated during the Government Leader's pre-budget consultation. Like the First Nations final agreements, a protected areas strategy will provide certainty for all parties, and that will promote jobs in the environmental arena, in wilderness tourism and in resource development.

Now, the Member for Riverside was just speaking about the land claims, Mr. Speaker, and mentioned the First Nations final agreements and the fact that they bring certainty and that they're good for the territory. I really have to respond. We have made progress on land claims. The Government Leader earlier this afternoon gave details of an agreement with the White River First Nation, and we intend to continue working hard to reach agreement with First Nations on land claims.

The leader of the official opposition, in his remarks, scoffed at spending money on dumps, and he said, "Well, there's nothing new about spending any money on dumps." Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Party record on Environment Act regulations is abysmal. The previous New Democratic government brought in the Environment Act, and do you know how many sets of regulations were passed during the four years that the Yukon Party was in office? Two - two sets of regulations - on the recycling fund and on the beverage containers - and both of those were in September of 1992 and October of 1992, and so work was well underway before the change in government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, since we have been in office, we've already made some progress, and for four years I asked the Minister of Community and Transportation Services about solid waste regulations and about air emission regulations while I was in opposition, and they did nothing.

Let me tell you what the Yukon New Democrat government has done since our election in the fall of 1996.

Air emission regulations are being drafted. They are now before the public for the mandatory 60-day public review, until April 6, 1998. Air emission regulations are about having clean air and protecting our environment. They did nothing; we're doing something right now.

Work on the solid waste regulations has also started. The government has released a discussion paper, "It's all about a bunch of garbage," prior to the public meetings that have been underway last month and this month. Following this consultation, the regulations on solid waste will be drafted, and a 60-day public review will be scheduled this year, in 1998.

Mr. Speaker, Yukon people care about their environment. Many community members support recycling efforts, as does this government. We will continue to act where the Yukon Party did not.

We have also enacted storage tank regulations, spills regulations and contaminated sites regulations. These regulations are based on environmental principles recommended by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Mr. Speaker, that is a better way of governing in the Yukon.

We will continue to deliver on our agenda in this territory. We have a better way. We would welcome constructive opposition, but I have to say that the debate that I've been hearing in response to this budget has been pretty thin soup coming from the other side of the House.

I would encourage the opposition to be constructive, and I would point as an example to the role that the Member for Riverdale South played in support of family violence prevention legislation.

This government continues to work with First Nations, with women's groups, with crime prevention organization, on implementation of a family violence prevention act, so that it can help women and children in our communities to lead safer lives.

We continue to work to improve programs that are being offered in our schools and in our communities to ensure that people are safe.

This budget's creation of long-term funding savings accounts for future projects will have a net benefit for future generations. We will continue to bring long-term planning to the Yukon and to make decisions based on the valuable input that we receive from the public.

Mr. Speaker, it's precisely because we have had the benefit of that good advice from members of the public that we've been able to prepare a budget to meet the needs of Yukon citizens.

I'm looking forward to the challenging work ahead of us in having this budget and spending the funds that we have appropriated in our priority initiative areas and in the workings of government. Those are good jobs - both public sector and private sector jobs - that are supported by this budget. I'm happy to commend the 1998-98 budget to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I'm somewhat taken aback by the message that is being delivered by this NDP government on this budget. When one looks through the preamble it says, "This budget is about jobs." On that point, I certainly have to agree with the Government Leader that this budget is about jobs. It's about the total lack of jobs that are being created here in Yukon. These are brought about by policies of this government, NDP policies that flow from their position paper, A Better Way. That paper, that election campaign paper, sold this party to the people of Yukon and raised their expectations - raised their expectations to a level that is not attainable.

They cannot be attained by the fiscal policies that are being brought forward by this government and enunciated in this budget. This budget shows no vision; no initiatives - there are a few minor ones that I agree with, Mr. Speaker - and other than jobs for NDP supporters, no jobs.

It would appear that the platform of job creation as envisioned by this government is to, number one, expand the government workforce or, if you can't fit into that category, you'd better be in a position to draw an unemployment insurance cheque. If you can't fit into that category, well, come on back and we'll get you a welfare cheque. Heck, our department will even pay your municipal property taxes if you apply. Not a problem.

The expansion of government, and NDP governments are known for big governments and the expansion that they create within government circles. Let's look at the one area that we can zero in and target: the Cabinet commissioners. According to the conflict commissioner, the Cabinet commissioners themselves are nothing more than messenger carriers to take the message from the deputy commission to the Cabinet. That's what Mr. Hughes stated in his letter and that was the information that was received by the Government Leader on a request from Mr. Hughes. That's the NDP position as to the responsibilities of a Cabinet commission.

When we look at it, there is a half a million dollars for each of these Cabinet commissions. That's just the tip of the iceberg. As everyone knows, there's about 10 percent of an iceberg showing. The other 90 percent is hidden somewhere in government and it's rising at an alarming rate.

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: And as with an iceberg, we'd better recognize that 90 percent of that iceberg that is hidden or those costs in that government is still a cost of government. So much for A Better Way. Consult, consult.

Mr. Speaker, the engine that drives the economy of the Yukon is mineral exploration, mining and construction projects. The visitor industry plays a significant role.

The minister of economic devastation has virtually destroyed mineral exploration with the message he's sending out to the mining community. There is going to be no mining exploration to speak of in the Yukon, and when one compares us to Alaska, our neighbour to the west, all of the major mining companies operating in Alaska are Canadian owned. If we were to add up the total number of Canadians engaged in mining in Alaska, I'm sure that there are more Canadians working in that industry there than there are here in the Yukon.

This bodes well for this government in their ability to stimulate and encourage mineral exploration and mining activity. But then when you listen to the ministers responsible for the various departments, it's always someone else's responsibility or it's always some board or it's always some committee or some consultation process that they hide behind.

This government does not have the ability to take the bull by the horns and get on with the business of government.

Government is for the majority of the people, and the question needs to be asked: do we need all of the government that we have, and do we need it to be expanding at the rate that it is currently expanding? I'm sure that if this government were to take their time and stand back, they could subscribe to a few policies that will have long-term benefits and not be just jobs for today and tomorrow for a couple of loyal supporters, Mr. Speaker.

Let's look, Mr. Speaker, at the major capital undertaking of this NDP government today. That is the school in Old Crow. In the rural school review, the school in Old Crow was identified as sadly needing replacement, and the only reason it's being replaced at this juncture, I'm sure, is because it burned down and the government was forced into replacing it.

Let's look at the Yukon hire component and how dismally this government has done. First of all, they tender out the services for the design to a firm remote from the Yukon, a firm that has northern experience and northern exposure. Of course, they were low tender, but with clear direction from the government, they could have identified early the need for Yukon components and Yukon labour in this major capital program.

The first one we look at is the floor joists. Because of the design of the school, it went to a firm in Alberta, creating some 2,000 hours of labour to construct the floor joists and the roof trusses for this school, Mr. Speaker. Had the design been sympathetic to Yukon manufacturers, that work could have stayed local. Right now, we have all of the Yukon's own truckers, sitting here in the Yukon, watching the Alberta truckers haul the product to Old Crow.

Here we have truckers who had a job here in the Yukon, who have the equipment, who have the skill, who have the ability, who have an understanding of what they have to cope with, and yet they're sitting there, watching the trucks go by their front door - the trucks from Alberta, hauling the product from Alberta. Shame on the Minister of Government Services.

The other area that we looked at with respect to the Old Crow school is the insulation that was spec'd. We're into hard-board styrofoam, 10 truck loads, manufactured somewhere else - not in the Yukon - and trucked up to Old Crow.

Had the Minister of Government Services had the least bit of understanding about insulation, he could have grasped that there are firms in the Yukon that have spray-in-place foam insulation that meets all of the specs, would probably do a heck of a better job than hardboard styrofoam insulation because it's sprayed in place and you fill up all the cracks and grooves. You only have to look at some of the other government jobs in the north where the buildings move and occasionally shift somewhat - the museum in Dawson City that the government took upon themselves to completely refurbish, initially put in bad insulation - styrofoam - and then in order to make it work they ended up spraying it all, which they should have done in the first place.

Here we have firms in the Yukon that can do this kind of work, providing employment in the Yukon to Yukoners, and probably one truckload of 45-gallon drums of the product hauled into Old Crow by a Yukon trucker could have replaced the 10 truckloads that are going to come from Alberta carrying hardboard styrofoam insulation to Old Crow. And this is just the beginning, Mr. Speaker, of the tenders that are let.

I'm sure by the time that this Minister of Government Services is finished the Old Crow school, when we add up all the supps, will make the Taj Mahal look like it was an inexpensive construction.

When we look at the other area, it's the insurance dollars from the fire at the Old Crow school. This government is touting the fact that this is their major capital undertaking. The budgeted amount is $8.5 million. Where's the insurance money in this whole scenario? Initially, the minister indicated that the insurance payout would more than offset the building cost of the new school, less the deductible.

The construction of the road and the trucking is going to add up to the amount of insurance that we're going to recover from the destruction of the Old Crow school by fire.

The other problem we have with the capital budget is the size of it, first of all. The members opposite are touting the fact that, as a percentage of the total budget, the Yukon government has the largest percentage of the budget in the capital area. That's always been the case. It continues to be the case in the north. But, what is happening today, Mr. Speaker, is that, when one analyzes it, a lot of what were previously O&M costs are being transferred to the capital side of the budget. They're being bootlegged in there, and it inflates the capital side and deflates the O&M, which is where these costs rightfully belong.

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: We have a number of areas that are of a positive nature. The home care that is being expanded by this government, I extend congratulations for. It's needed. It's an area that has to be dealt with and I certainly support it. But then when we look at the facilities for elders in the Yukon - one of the fastest growing sectors of our society - and it's a long-standing issue in rural Yukon, especially in Watson Lake and Dawson City, it's being ignored - the provision of accommodations.

This government promised that Health and Social Services would be their number-one priority. Yet the waiting list, Mr. Speaker, and the wait time to enter either Macaulay or McDonald Lodge has increased dramatically despite the significant increase in the budget of this department.

We haven't seen it all, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure when everything is said and done, the supplementaries will come in this fall and most departments will show a decrease from what was budgeted with the exception of the Minister of Health and Social Services, who will be handing out cheques to some of his supporters to pay their taxes and do whatever he needs to do to glean their support in the future.

When we look at Crossroads and the situation there, I'm just appalled. I'm just appalled, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we called for an investigation because there were difficulties, but calling for an investigation into a service that was being provided effectively and efficiently for some 20-odd years, doesn't mean that you close it down.

There's constant change, and constant change is part of good government, Mr. Speaker. What you do is look at the delivery of the programs, you look at what areas can be improved upon, and you attend to fixing the vehicle. What the government has done is thrown away the whole vehicle and gone out and bought a new one. It hasn't spec'd out what the vehicle is going to do or how it's going to be driven, and it's interesting that the program that was adopted was plucked right off the Internet. There were a few minor changes and embellishments here and there, and I would urge the minister to look on the Internet and to look at his little green pamphlet that was distributed and compare it and see what changes are in there.

Crossroads has helped an awful lot of people, and it could continue to help an awful lot of Yukoners that are afflicted with alcoholism or have other addictions. But this minister has chosen to look instead to take a different course, a different tack, and suggest to the general population that the government is going to undertake the delivery of these services and do it at less cost. Anyone in industry knows that there is no way that government is going to compete with the private sector in the delivery of services. There are very, very few areas where government can deliver a service more cost effectively than the private sector or NGOs, and this is what the minister is suggesting. Crossroads, who still has a lease on its building from the government - I'm not sure what the minister is going to do. He's probably just going to not send over any money to them and just force them out or take back the building or slap them again, and I'm sure they'll be the last ones to know. The first they'll probably know about it is when it's raised in the newspaper or the news media.

Or the sheriff will knock on the door and take back the keys. I'm not sure which way the minister's going to go, but it'll probably be either/or, or some variation, or maybe both, Mr. Speaker.

The point is that this government has not given much thought to a complete and thorough analysis of the program that was at Crossroads and how it could be improved upon before they went off on a tangent, threw it away and embarked on something totally brand new.

When one looks at the programs - the wilderness camps; and in last Friday's paper, there was an advertisement in the newspaper, asking for submissions in this area - and we look at the money that this government is spending, and the number of people who are being put through this system - we look at Old Crow, and there were 11 individuals put there, run through their camps, at a cost approaching $300,000.

These costs - I'm sure the minister has some justification for them - but how is the analysis being conducted of how efficient and effective these treatment programs are? We don't know. We just see the bills coming in and the contracts being awarded, Mr. Speaker, for some tens of thousands of dollars for this undertaking. And it appears that this initiative is continuing.

Now, at what juncture do we stand back and conduct an analysis of how effectively these are treating the people who attend these camps?

The minister hasn't indicated there at all how this is going to be undertaken or when it's going to be done, and, if the minister's asked, a lot of them are young offenders and the minister hides behind the veil of secrecy that, "We don't want to discuss it," or, "We can't discuss it because we are protected. We want to protect the identity." We're not looking for the identity of these individuals in this program, Mr. Speaker. We're looking to see and find out if the cost is justified for what comes through that system. There could be better ways of treatment than what we are looking at.

There are a few positive initiatives, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, in the health part of this budget. Other than that, I cannot find very much that we can count on here in the Yukon to create jobs, to stimulate our economy.

The Shakwak highway project: there was a list of the number of letters that were sent by this government to various offices of representatives and state legislators and federal senators in the U.S. to encourage the funding. But what other initiatives could this government undertake? Did the government explore going to the Government of Canada and seeing if they would advance funds? Has that been looked at?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: That's not made public. And was that avenue pursued with the same vigour as they pursued support for Shakwak funding?

It was a dismal lobbying effort on behalf of this government, from what I'm given to understand talking to people in Alaska that represent their various jurisdictions. A lot more could have been done by this government to see that the Shakwak project came to fruition a lot faster than it probably will. And there's no certainty that it will be approved in the federal budget in the U.S. this fiscal year, either.

What this government is going to have to do if we want to be successful is continue to mount a lobbying effort and keep up the pressure, keep up the pace. The system in the U.S. functions quite a bit differently than in Canada. Most of the decision making is done in the committee stage. When one gets into the Legislature or their Senate, the issues are just ratified very, very quickly.

The Yukon should be at the table. We can be invited over there quite readily to speak to a number of these issues, and I would encourage the minister, the Government Leader and the minister of highways to get involved, and to get involved more thoroughly, because these projects, initiated in that state, affect dramatically the economic well-being of Yukoners.

The ball has been dropped by this government on the Shakwak. When is it going to get picked up and when are going to get back in the ball game, Mr. Speaker? That's the question.

We look at the mine site in Faro. When it is running, it contributes extremely well to the economy of the Yukon.

We can't control the price of zinc and lead, its two principal commodities, but we can do a lot to provide the infrastructure, and some certainty to that infrastructure, and facilitate an initiative that could result in the reopening of that minesite when the prices of their products are at a level that is economically viable.

What we have is a government that passes the buck, saying Cominco has bigger pockets than the Government of Yukon - and they do. But if we stand back, this minesite, which still has four years of ore reserves at the level that it was being mined at previously - four years of work for Yukoners - something could be done.

Then we look at the effect that the opening and the closing of the mine in Faro has on the Yukon - the power rates of Yukoners. It's the government's role to provide infrastructure. That's their role. I've said it once; I'll repeat it again, Mr. Speaker. The tripod on which an economy is built are these three legs: transportation, energy and communication. Now we do have a highway from Faro to Skagway. The energy situation is about as volatile as volatile can be. In all other parts of Canada the cost of electricity is going down but in the Yukon, we're probably looking at some 20 or 30 or 40 percent increase, given what happened previously when the Faro mine shut down and a rate increase that was sought by the Yukon Energy Corporation.

That doesn't even account for the amount that is outstanding, and the power bill of Anvil Range. We have a whole set of things here in Yukon that, if the government grabbed the bull by the horns - one being energy; and we have gas fields and oil up in Eagle Plains, north of Dawson City, just off the Dempster Highway, and that gas could be utilized as a fuel here in Yukon. The oil could be used. Indeed, the oil could be burned in power-generating equipment here in Yukon.

We have oil and gas fields in the southern part of the Yukon that could be tapped into also to supply Watson Lake and that area, but these fuels are going to remain in the ground under this government for time immemorial. Unless we in Yukon address the issue of energy, we are going to continue to be a major importer. The numbers that are bandied about are that 25 cents out of every dollar that changes hands here in Yukon goes south to purchase energy. Or it probably goes west into Alaska to purchase energy from Alaska, but we are not going to get anywhere unless we address this energy issue, unless we come up with a long-term strategy for a grid for power.

I applaud the government for looking at an interconnect and a tie-in to Alaska or British Columbia. It was a stupid idea when it was advanced by the previous government, by the Yukon Party government, but now a lot of these ideas ain't all that bad.

The 40-watt lightbulb must have been changed to a 60 or something. The fiscal reality of addressing the responsibilities that you have on your plate are coming to light.

When we look at the road improvements around Yukon and the amount that we're spending on highways other than the Shakwak, we're not going to even maintain what we have with this type of a program, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very, very disappointed to see that this government hasn't even continued the planning toward a bridge across the Yukon River north of us that would tie in to Alaska. That would be at Dawson City. I think the Government Leader referred to it as the "bridge to nowhere," but yet the economic benefits that would accrue to Yukon are quite substantial. They would accrue not only to Dawson but to all Yukon. When one looks at the land development in Yukon as demonstrated in this budget, Mr. Speaker, we see virtually all, some millions and millions of dollars, flowing once again into Whitehorse.

With the mobile home strategy, it looks like the lots that they're going to be developing are going to be at higher cost than the lots that are presently available. And then the side of the equation that hasn't been looked at is what is going to be the effect of this mobile home strategy on people selling existing mobile homes. What effect is government's intervention in this marketplace going to have on the selling price of older mobile homes? These are areas that the government of the day has currently not looked at.

There are millions of dollars flowing into Whitehorse, and yet when we look at what's going outside of Whitehorse - $390,000 for country residential lots in Carcross, Dawson, Haines Junction and Ross River. That's it, $300,000, and we just look at what's happening in Whitehorse.

It looks like the Government Leader is going to be expropriating a whole lot of land down on the waterfront to build - we don't know what. There's some $294,000 being expended there. My suggestion was that it was a back door land claims deal or it could have been a deal to build another recreation centre or convention centre or something of that nature, but the Government Leader has pooh-poohed all of these areas. Some foundation for the future that this government is creating.

We look at the Education side of the budget. The O&M costs, despite this government touting that they are all for continuing education, have decreased from previous years. If you want to put it into constant dollars, it's very interesting.

Yet, we're training for jobs. There's another $1.5 million into the training trust funds to train our people to work in the mining industry that doesn't exist, to train our people to work in the forestry industry that doesn't exist, and to train our people to work in the agricultural industry.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: Well, it has a very, very narrow window of economic viability.

Our visitor sector is the one area that does employ ...

Speaker: The member has three minutes.

Mr. Jenkins: ... a tremendous number of people. The training trust fund there - I'm not sure if an analysis has been conducted to see how effective that has been to date.

This government could do a lot in supporting healthy communities by creating an economy that provides for jobs. This budget is not a budget that I can support. It does nothing to develop Yukon.

The Minister of Justice and Education went on at great lengths to expand on how many more regulations her government has brought in. We don't need more government and more regulations. We need less government and fewer regulations. We need a sweeping -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: When one looks at the erosion of the surplus created by the previous Yukon Party government, I quote you one line from NDP Leader Piers McDonald's response to the budget a few years ago. He stated, "It's more of a kamikaze budget than a responsible one. There will be a small surplus by the end of the fiscal year but it will be too small to meet the prudent one-month operating reserve." One month's operating reserve is some $40 million.

Now, we've taken the surplus left by the previous Yukon Party government and we've managed to whittle it down in two successive budgets to what we hope to be some $15 million, and I would seriously doubt that.

I'm disappointed that this government can't give more thought to the future of the Yukon and come up with more vision than what we have.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this budget.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me pleasure indeed to be able to follow the previous speaker, although I guess I won't be able to follow him where he's going, because I don't think they know where they're going, Mr. Speaker, and I choose not to follow them.

Mr. Speaker, I do have some comments that I would like to share with the people of the Yukon concerning the budget. Not only concerning the budget, Mr. Speaker, but certainly on how you do things with what you have to work with.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that I'm pleased to be here. I want to speak in response to the budget address that reflects so many of this government's commitments to the people of the Yukon. This budget is the result of very much thought, working in partnership with the Yukon people. It reflects our commitments to involve people in decisions that affect them, and our commitments to planning.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of declining revenues, we continue to protect the health and education services, but these are all issues that are pertinent to every budget speech.

What I think is that we should examine ourselves. Are we elected by the people to have narrow visions, to represent those narrow regional visions and, in some cases, visions that only come from a town - in some cases, a village - and that's total representation? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We're to look forward to representing Yukon and all people within the Yukon. We are not here to convert the converted. We are here to bring the others and, in order to bring the others - and they're there - we must start to focus more on how we do.

Our Government Leader has said many wise things in his tenure as a politician and as a government leader and as leader of a political party and a leader of a territory, but one of the most profound statements - and I reflect on it often; and I think everybody here should - is how you do it is just as important or more important than what you do.

There, Mr. Speaker, is something that we all want to do. Everybody on that side of the House wants to sit on this side of the House, although you'd certainly never judge it, because there's only one opposition member sitting across there right now, so obviously all they have to do is make their statements and their speeches, Mr. Speaker, and go back to their cubby holes, throw their feet up on their desks and drink a cup of coffee because, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what they're saying by their absence from this room.

Mr. Speaker, this is not ego. We should not be posturing and that is exactly what is happening. People are posturing so that they might win the next election. This government right here is putting principles in place -

Speaker's statement

Speaker: Order please. I would like to remind members that pursuant to notation 418, paragraph (c) of Beauchesne, they are not to refer to the presence or absence of any other members. Continue please.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: That is very smart, yes, Mr. Speaker, although it's been used against us before, but it is good for the people to know. So thank you, Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected.

But just on that case, is it posturing? Is it visible? No, Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think that we ought to think about the old ways of doing things. I don't mean the old days and living by candles and you did not have the electricity, or anything like as such but I think that we have to think about the old ways in terms of being principle-driven, to bring the principles forward, to take what you need and leave the rest. That's called sustainability.

We should be looking at each other with respect. We should be looking at what we are here to do. We should work together. We're here to be constructive; we are not here to flaunt our egos. We're here to be - I guess now in the modern and contemporary way of politics, I guess - is that we're here to be critical, not constructive.

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes think that we should all take a deep breath and think about the principles of the past so that we might be able to integrate them.

I've heard all sorts of words in this room in the previous 15 months and even just today: "capitalism, socialism", buying new vehicles. Let me say that anybody who sits here and represents just a capitalist thought, a socialist thought or any kind of singular thought is very, very narrow in their vision.

And they will, as the previous speaker has just said, have a kamikaze budget. It will kill them, so the Government Leader was very right in defining not just their budget but their vision. Visions must be all-encompassing. Visions must be for the people of Whitehorse, for the people of Dawson, for the people of all the Yukon, not just the simple group that are my friends or of interests which they represent, but of all the Yukon. Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what this budget says and does. It's not posturing. It's not legal testimony. It's for all the people. It's not sectoral.

So, that's why I believe in this budget, and that's why I'll be supporting this budget. That's why I think all folks of this House should support the budget, because it's a budget that is credible. It's a budget that is from the people.

So, if we can practice and do what the people say and want us to do in terms of directing the budget, and if we could be focusing on construction and being kind to one another, working toward the same goals, not having such a personality-driven budget or approach to governance, but an approach driven by principles, knowing that we all want good governance. Every one of us wants good governance, but maybe it's the system that puts us into a spot where we have to say, "Well, I'm better than you, even though I don't have a record of governance," but I can be posturing and I could say, "But I'm better than you. Just trust me. Look at me and trust me, because I'm here for the people." But is there a record? No. So that's just posturing, lampooning governments, if I might say it in that way.

So let's not take such a personality, knee-jerk budget process for governing, Mr. Speaker. Let's put in place the principles. Let's put in place the process and the attitude of making the Yukon better and being good to one another and being kind.

Sometimes the way people are speaking in this House, Mr. Speaker, they seem to put prices on health. You know, when people start to put prices on health and education, you know what it tells me? It tells me that if you cannot afford to be privy to health programs, education programs and social programs, it tells me that other people think you're disposable, and when you become disposable in their minds, they can shut you out because you're not of use to them or their society. Yet those are the very people that have to be brought up and to be held up so that they can stand and be a part of society, not cast from society.

So often I hear that reflected in the benches of the official opposition.

The previous speaker spoke a little bit about better ways of treatment. Well, certainly there are better ways of treatment. That's exactly what this government is looking at. We're looking at focusing the treatment principles on the individual. We're looking at putting the treatment principles on the family, in some cases the clan structures and in other cases the community structure that comes from that. We're looking at a holistic society and do people think just a little bit too much herbs and spices? Does Keenan always talk - pardon me, I'm not even sure I can refer to myself. So, does this member always refer to these things?

Mr. Speaker, it's only herbs and spices if you think of it as such. But we think of it as healthy individuals, healthy families, healthy communities, which gives us a good, clean, healthy Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, that is reflected in this budget, very much reflected in this budget. With even less to spend, we're spending smarter and we're building foundations for the future with and for the people. That's why I can support this.

It's a vision of balance, Mr. Speaker. We've been very thoughtful. We've taken a deliberate approach. And why are we taking a deliberate approach? We're taking that approach so that we can leave a legacy for all of our Yukon people and for all of the world, because right now I have not inherited a position, I have not inherited Yukon. I am not, in my position, able to direct pillaging of the environment or anything like as such. I've got a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and my responsibility is to the unborn, to the future generations of Yukoners that are yet to come, and I hope there are many of them because they will have a place to live. It will be called Yukon.

And, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to work together and to be kind and considerate with one another. It doesn't mean that tough decisions can't be made. It doesn't mean that you can't get passionate. It means that you must and you should. You should be that way to sit in this House for the people, because that's what you are here for. Not yourself. You are here for the people and the future generations.

If we all think that way, this will be a much better world. Yet, some people will say, "Oh, a little too holistic. A little too much herbs and spice for me." Doggone it, Mr. Speaker, that says that we are going to leave something.

Unparliamentary language

Speaker: Order. Refrain from using unparliamentary language, please.

Withdrawal of remark

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. I didn't realize I used unparliamentary language. Pardon me.

We are looking and working to build partnerships toward resource development - partnerships based on sustainable principles. We know that the Yukon promotes, for tourism, a world-class attraction. We spoke about and followed the process of focus group test results. We know that people want to see pristine wilderness in the environment. We know that they want to have First Nations experiences. We know that they want to see the Beringia era. They know that the gold rush is there and they want to see it. Well, by working together and working cooperatively on that focus, we can accomplish exactly that.

I've had people in this House and people on the street saying, "What's it like to be the minister of fun? Boy, it must be nice to be the minister of fun." Let me categorically say right now, if I'm the minister of fun, I've got a big challenge ahead and a lot of work. Work can be fun. Work, to me, is very much fun, but it's not a ministry of fun. It shouldn't even be looked at in that light. The person who says it is the ministry of fun has obviously missed the point. Those types of people are not good representatives for tourism or for the future of the Yukon. If you look at what tourism is and can be, it's the future of the Yukon. It can involve every person in the Yukon somehow or other to stand on their own two feet and to bring something forth, because that is just who and what we are.

I would like to move on a little bit to the land claims process. Again, let me say for the record that I thank the official opposition for providing me with the motivation to enter into this realm of politics, because, without their motivation, I would likely not be here. But, with their motivation, I certainly am here, Mr. Speaker.

The land claims process. It is so deceiving. The land claims process is treated like a political football. Some people have the pigskin in their hand, and they're backing up, because it's the third year of their mandate and they need to win, so they throw a long bomb and they bring home two. Well, what's wrong with doing that in the first or the second year of your mandate. Show a little bit of respect. Show a little bit of dignity, because what we're doing is we're working with people's lives. We have people's lives right in the palms of our hands. We have fiduciary obligations to all peoples of the Yukon, and we have obligations not to treat it as a football - a political football.

What did I hear? The ex-Government Leader of the Yukon, what did he say today about, oh, we know that there's a real high, or something like the such, from signing a land claim. How off the mark. How off the wall. I've never heard such ludicrous statements. Expectations, or however he put it. Let's start to treat it as what it is. The land claim self-government process brings certainty, certainly, but it also provides an opportunity for communities to work together.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very fortunate to have been born and raised in the Yukon. I'm very fortunate to be 46 years old and to be born in that era, because then, people never really looked at each other in colour. They never really looked at that spruce tree as meaning pulp and paper. It meant a lot of different things, too. They looked at things in common and together for the betterment of community living, starting with the individual, the family, the village, society. That's the way things were, Mr. Speaker, when I grew up and was born and raised in this country.

Now we are taking it back that way, and if people will start to look at the land claims process and the implementation of the land claims process, not as a political football, but the meaningful development of people's lives, we'll have all moved up a little higher. In our hearts and in our minds, we'll be thinking more of the collective whole than the I: I this and I that. It's not I did this for the people, it's what can we do for the people based on principles. That's governance of the future. That's governance of the past, and that's what this budget reflects, Mr. Speaker.

It reflects a high quality of life for all, starting with the individual and ending with the community - healthy communities. Why do people want to come to the Yukon? Because of healthy communities, because of opportunity and because of the Yukon. That's why people want to come here.

Let me talk a little bit about Ross River and the Southern Lakes. The capital and O&M expenditures included in this budget cover a wide range of activities. Many of these projects will create work for contractors and workers from rural Yukon, Mr. Speaker. In Carcross, we're providing funding for the scaling and removal of rock and installation of steel mesh and rock bolts on the south Klondike Highway. We're looking at improvements to the water system. We're looking to upgrade community roads with some improved drainage. In Tagish, we're constructing firehall training rooms to bring the firehall to the standards of others in the Yukon. We'll be upgrading the sewage treatment facility. Funding has been set aside to complete street upgrade in Teslin.

Small contractors and workers in rural Yukon will benefit from the commitment of $500,000, Mr. Speaker, for the improvements to secondary roads.

Funding has been set aside for the development of a country residential subdivision in Ross River. Three hundred and sixty thousand has been budgeted to construct a swimming pool in Ross. Work will be carried in local area planning and land development and it will be based on partnership and encouraging partnership in community living.

We've budgeted for erosion control work on the Dempster Highway and, whether others in here like it or not, we have an adequate supply of land for Yukoners.

We are respecting the wishes of mayors and councils, in this particular case, of the Dawson City mayor and council, because we have offered our help to them for the subdivision that they want to build, but we also believe in empowerment and working with municipalities, Mr. Speaker, and to that end we are working with them. We are not doing for them; we are working with them to ensure that we do have an adequate supply of land.

We're looking at the same thing, not only in the outlying areas but also in and around the Whitehorse area. We're looking at country residential development, industrial development, and we're looking at it in many rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, we've been out talking to people over this winter. We've been having consultations on rural services policies so that we might be able to start a line or correlate, if I may, the tax rate and the services provided. That's what we're doing. We're doing that by talking to people. So, what I think is that we're involving people and we are an inclusive government - very much so. We are not an exclusive government; we are the people's government. We are the government of the people, inclusive. My door and telephone are ringing off the hook at all times, because people know that they can go into any Cabinet office, they know that they can go into any commission office, they know that they can go into any backbencher's office and they will be treated with dignity. They will be treated with kindness and they will be listened to. That's what'll be happening.

Now, with the previous administration, they couldn't get in - exactly - they couldn't get in, because I just gave up trying to see the previous administration.

Telephones and electric service are very difficult to assess, but this government has added a 100-percent recoverable $1.15 million and are working with the program to make it work because we want to make it work. People deserve a quality of life.

We're investigating the airport runway for $70,000 so that we can know that we can do things in concert - not knee-jerk, because this ain't a knee-jerk government. This is thoughtful, planned government. We come with plans and we move on those plans and involve people with those plans. Not knee-jerk. Oops, tourism might be an opportunity. Oops. No, thoughtful, Mr. Speaker, that's how we move ahead and we will create a world-class destination, as we have been.

We're working on transportation corridors. We're putting thought toward transportation corridors so that we might be able to move forward; not knee-jerk again, but planned and concise direction. Not because I have some buds in this industry or I have some buds in that industry but, no - promoting Yukon as Yukon. That's what'll be reflected in that.

Look at what we're doing. This government is contributing toward the costs of hosting the winter games. We're setting up a fund, Mr. Speaker. That's exactly what we're doing, and this fund will receive $1 million this year and for the next seven years, and it will grow with interest to approximately $8.2 million. The fund could be contributed toward the cost of building a new recreational facility for the games.

The second fund is a nine-year commitment of $1 million per year to help fund a capital project in Dawson City. Mr. Speaker, I am not telling the people of Dawson City what they have to do. I am working with the people of Dawson City through a process so that we might be able to come up with the best, wise usage of the fund, and that's exactly what we're doing.

The previous speaker spoke about, "What are you going to do on the waterfront?" and "What are you going to do in here?" and convention centres. My God, weren't they the ones that killed a convention centre that was going to move the Yukon economy ahead? Or was it killed, Mr. Speaker, because of racial overtones? Was it killed because of capitalism at its very, very best? I do believe so, because I've been a politician and around and a part of that process for many years. That's why I believe it was killed. Is it helping them now? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. But, everybody's got hindsight.

Mr. Speaker, my department and their technocratic energies, political energies, my government's political energies have been working with the federal Government of Canada, the federal Government of the United States and with every partnership we could conceivably work with to ensure that the Shakwak project goes on and continues to provide jobs.

Mr. Speaker, from the Prime Minister and the President on down, we have been shaking the tree to ensure that this happens. We have been doing a very good job of this. My folks within my department have been working their feet off. They've been absolutely working their feet off by trying to ensure that we have a Shakwak project, and I feel very, very confident that there will be Shakwak in the future.

Dismal lobbying, I would have said - dismal lobbying. It's lobbying with dignity, it's lobbying with respect for other governments, knowing that we want to work together in concert. Is that dismal, Mr. Speaker? I think not. I think absolutely not. But, other people are used to being bullies, threatening, deceiving - shaking the tree, saying do this, or else? Because, it has come to my attention that when people were over there - people were lobbying actively, but were we really lobbying actively for all people? Or, are we thinking about a narrow vision for the Taylor Highway, so that it might encompass one area? I think that's the point - very much the point.

So, we believe in lobbying with dignity and we're doing that. We're doing that very much at the technical level and at the political level, and it's done by the government initiative, not individuals, but the government directing - not bullying. Absolutely not.

Back in the ball game, he said. Back in the ball game. Is $90 million, people's lives and jobs a game? A game. A game - that's hideous. But, of course, that's the previous administration. What more do I have to say. That is them.

In tourism, there's such an awareness among us of the economic importance. The Department of Tourism will continue to work with First Nations, communities and industry and continue to develop tourism plans for the future. This budget provides an additional $200,000 for marketing initiatives, with which we will continue to develop key growth markets around the world and to work on a cooperative marketing partnership. Look at what partnerships can do in terms of bringing in production to the Yukon. Air Transat - there's one prime example. That wasn't just done, put in our pocket and then ignored. It was the continuing work ethic and our philosophy of tourism in the Yukon to move forward. That's why that is a success.

We've budgeted an additional $50,000 for post-anniversary product development initiatives, and that's so we can seek to increase the market - Yukon-tour product. That's what that's for, Mr. Speaker. And, we'll continue to work in those manners.

Our government's committed to developing budgets that are fiscally responsible and reflect the needs of the people of the Yukon. This budget reflects those commitments and sets a foundation for future projects and initiatives that are important to Yukoners, Mr. Speaker, very important to Yukoners, such as governance driven by principle-driven governance. That is very important.

Mr. Speaker, if we look into the past, we can see the future. This country was made on trade, prospecting, mining, freight and transportation. Well, that's exactly what's in this budget. It is a sectoral approach, because it encompasses every sector, not just one sector. Principle sustainability driven by DAP. What more could I say, Mr. Speaker.

We are looking forward to involving all people. We are looking forward to the Crossroads treatment program, to enable the Crossroads treatment program to work for the individuals so that we might have a healthy community. That's what we're doing.

We're doing it with people, because not all people are the same. Much like the Canadian unity debate. Every one of us stood and spoke very passionately, yourself included, I must say, but were you speaking of just one individual? Were you speaking of benchmarks and standards, or were you really looking at different ways to get to the same goal, but respecting different people's processes and respecting different standards. Is that what you were looking at? I think not. Absolutely, I think not.

I'll put my record on the line as you do. We'll let the people judge, and the people have judged, and the people will judge. That's what is happening, and that's what will continue to happen, because we are not simply here for industry. We are not here for the First Nations. We are not here for health and education. We're here for all of those initiatives. We represent all of those initiatives, Mr. Speaker.

TROY. Whitehorse. Oh, God. Yukon. This is not a race of communities to see who gets the rec centre, who gets a new school, who gets the health centre. No, no, no, no. This creates, with respect and dignity, a level playing field for all people, Mr. Speaker - for all people. That's exactly what it says and does. And we will do that through a very wide vision, consulting with people, continuing to consult with people. We will do that through good lobbying and not bullying, speaking of bullying. That's what we'll do and how we'll do it, and we'll do it with dignity and will continue to do so.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, I will support this budget. I will continue to support this budget and I will continue to involve the people of the Yukon in the development of budgets, and we'll do it without cutting health and education, without increasing taxes or imposing health care. We've less to spend, so we've got to spend smarter, and that's exactly what this caucus is doing and can do.

We're going to break the boom-and-bust cycle. How are we going to do that? By developing a stronger, more diversified economy that creates more jobs and business opportunities by listening to all peoples of the Yukon, even the Member for Klondike - with him, with business, with communities, with First Nations, labour, the environmental community - and we're going to encourage development that is financially and environmentally sustainable. That's what the New Democrat government is all about.

We're demonstrating our commitment to fostering healthy communities and we're doing that. We're addressing the needs of young people and low-income families, not as political footballs, but as everyday Yukoners, because there's no such thing as a disposable Yukoner, as in previous administrations there was.

We're protecting the pricelessness of the environmental heritage for the future generations. That's what we're doing. We're setting to set aside representative areas of the Yukon's 23 distinct ecoregions because we know that the Yukon is a drawing card, not only to the mining community and the logging community, but to the people who want to take pictures with their Kodak cameras and take home a chunk of pristine Yukon. Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what we're doing.

We're protecting and maintaining municipal block funding. We have been cut, but we have not passed it on. What we've done is spend smarter. We put together the community development fund, one of the most successful capital creations that have ever come to the Yukon Territory and we're increasing it by 75 percent. Now, some people should be like the snowbirds and just fly away, but they only mimic them and I would challenge some members as to what they would do with their political career after they've sat in this House and represented the people.

So, Mr. Speaker, that's what we are doing. We're working to provide a stable economic climate rather than the roller-coaster of the past and we're going to continue to do that.

Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Speaker, greatly appreciated.

Mrs. Edelman: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's the Prozac budget: no highs, no lows, no direction and no point. Don't worry about high unemployment, rising electrical rates or our primary industry, mining leaving the Yukon. Don't worry, be happy - the NDP are taking care of you, just like they took care of the 12 laid off CNAs and the 14 laid off Crossroads workers. Be cool about the 75-percent drop in funding for road maintenance over the last two years. There's no reason to even wake up those graders to barely maintain the roads for that type of money. And those 45 engineers and techs in C&TS - they're going to have a very relaxing winter because there's nothing to do.

We aren't going to bother with those silly little capital projects this year. We're all going to be calm this winter and be one with the universe, and the people who have been consulting the Department of Health and Social Services, they can be still now. After all, the department makes decisions about things they don't even ask about in their consultations anyway.

How many people were specifically asked during the general consultation process on drug and alcohol issues about whether or not we should close down the Crossroads treatment centre without exploring any other options with the board? And how many people were asked that very specific question, I wonder?

Yes, people like the volunteer board members at Crossroads don't even have to get their energy up to be involved in decision making. There is no reason to bother. Someone who knows what's best for us has taken that responsibility out of our hands. That's where the money is going in health and social services - to the people who take care of us, just in case we've been lulled into believing that we can't take care of ourselves.

And we shouldn't worry about the moving of the Women's Directorate, because the NDP did it. Women's issues could never be less important to the NDP. Oh no, because after all, the NDP think they have a monopoly on women's issues - because they are the NDP. We have to believe that just because they move the Women's Directorate out of the high profile, high traffic location that they used to enjoy to P.O. Box oblivion on top of the Financial Plaza, we just have to believe that women's issues are still front and centre to this government because they're the NDP. You know the NDP, the party that 60 percent of Yukoners did not vote for.

Of course, if the Liberal government had moved the Women's Directorate out to the back 40 like the NDP did, well, the hue and cry would be unbelievable from the members of the NDP. The NDP wouldn't be very relaxed about that. Oh no.

And I guess because the NDP feels they have a monopoly on women's issues, they don't really have to spend any new money during consultation on the regs for the Family Violence Prevention Act, and we should be calm about that.

After all - oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was just lulled into feeling satisfied with the budget.

Soon, the happy people at Yukon Housing will be handing out mortgages for homes on newly developed lots and, just because we are already holding on to an excessive inventory of land, according to the Auditor General, and just because that's costing us over $1 million a year in holding costs - money that could well be invested elsewhere, anywhere else - well, we shouldn't worry about that, even if that money from the interest could feed a lot of hungry people next winter.

No, we should just calmly trust the NDP, the government that has frivolously reduced the surplus account by a whopping 37 percent.

This budget doesn't cover a lot of new ground and, you know, I really didn't think it would.

Politically, this government thinks it's guaranteed a second term. They just have to tread water right now, not tick off too many people, just hope for the best and try not to make too many enemies. After all, we live in a funny fantasyland. Everywhere else in Canada, people are waiting months for life-saving surgeries and, here, we grumble if we have to wait longer than a week to see the surgeon. Our seniors enjoy the highest levels of seniors' benefits in Canada. Our athletes enjoy world-class facilities and our facilities for the arts are excellent, bar none.

The other point about budgets: there actually is not a lot of latitude in the changes you can make. There are always long-term projects and programs that have to be maintained. There are legal commitments that have to be met. I realize that there isn't usually a lot of play in the lines, so to speak, but at some point we're going to have to make some pretty serious changes in the way we govern ourselves in the Yukon.

Some of those changes have already happened. NGOs are delivering a wide variety of services to this government; services that this government used to deliver directly 20 years ago. But the only problem with that is that there are still not enough checks and balances in the system to monitor and regulate those services. There is a wide variety of expenditures going on in the various departments but there is a dearth of policy. And policy answers a lot of questions for a lot of civil servants who survive the various mood swings of the Yukon public - you know, the swing from the loony right to the loony left.

And, speaking of civil servants, we have to be more inclusive of the civil service in our decision-making process. If we ask people about how we can save money and then actually listen to their ideas, we might not have to worry about bringing down that surplus next year.

I don't know. I think there's hope yet and I don't believe that any one of us has a monopoly on good ideas. I also don't think just because a good idea comes from this side of the floor, it should be dismissed out of hand. Despite the fact that the rules of this Legislature set us up almost like actors in mortal combat, that doesn't mean we can't work together occasionally and, on occasion, we do good stuff together. For example, I quite enjoyed our exchange this year with Juneau. The theme for all of us on this exchange was shared roadways with the United States, particularly Alaska, and I think all of us were quite surprised to find out that the rather active lobbying we were doing with the Governor of the State of Alaska and her obvious support of the Shakwak project had not been realized by either the Legislature or the Senate. The message that the Yukon supports the Shakwak is just not getting out.

Of course, we also learned on the exchange how to better lobby politicians in Alaska. Clearly, decisions are made at the committee level in Alaska and by the time an issue hits the floor of either H