Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, March 4, 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 at this time with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Harding: I have a document for tabling.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Community development fund: funding increase

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to inform members of an initiative that clearly demonstrates our government's policy of meeting community needs and creating employment opportunities for Yukon people. As members are aware, in the next fiscal year, funding for the community development fund will increase by 75 percent to $3.5 million. This is consistent with our government's central principle of fostering strong and healthy communities.

The short-term economic outlook that I tabled a few moments ago indicates that the Yukon economy is expected to face some difficulties this year, largely due to the downturn in the mining industry. This results from several factors, including the impact of the Asian currency crisis, low gold/base metal prices and the lingering effect of Bre-X on the ability of junior mining companies to raise capital for exploration and development.

The completion of the Shakwak highway reconstruction and the Whitehorse General Hospital have also significantly decreased the resources available to this government for capital projects. These large capital projects have been funded respectively by the U.S. Congress and the Government of Canada.

One way our government is responding to these economic difficulties is by expanding the CDF to create short-term jobs and meet community objectives that have been identified as priorities by local people.

I am pleased to note that the latest round of approvals under tier 2 gave the go-ahead to 12 projects, creating a combined total of 739 weeks of work for people in various communities throughout the Yukon.

Some of the community projects these grants will facilitate include renovations for the Dawson Humane Society, improvements to the swimming pool in Mayo, additions to the water and sewer facilities for the Tagish community hall, and an expansion to the community soup kitchen at the Sacred Heart Cathedral.

Mr. Speaker, when the tier 3 projects are approved in the next few weeks, I am confident that even more jobs and other worthwhile opportunities will be made possible for Yukon people.

Mr. Speaker, besides increasing the funding base for the CDF, our government is also taking steps to improve the administration of this program so that community needs can be met more quickly.

Some of the changes we are making include streamlining the contribution agreement for successful CDF applicants to allow funds to be disbursed quickly, so that projects can be completed in a more timely fashion; a semi-annual workshop for departments responsible for funding programs to share ideas and improve coordination of government support for communities; a tour of the communities by project officers this spring to create awareness and provide information of the program. This will increase the ability of staff to work directly with applicants to facilitate their projects.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of our government's commitment to creating employment opportunities and meeting the needs of Yukon communities. The expansion of the community development fund is a major reflection of that commitment.

Thank you.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate for Yukoners - and especially unemployed Yukoners - that the only answer that this government has to creating jobs for Yukoners, who are dearly going to need jobs, is the CDF.

We have heard that fund not only being criticized by us in this House but by people out in the private sector.

While communities love the CDF fund - who wouldn't, when you have a government come and say, "How much money do you want?" - there are major problems we have with the CDF - and that shouldn't come as any surprise to the minister - such as the way it's administered and the ministerial authority for directing funds for certain projects. We think that if we're going to have this type of fund, then it ought to be done at arm's length from the political people.

I also have some concerns with the minister's statement, where he's talking now about project officers. I would hope that he'll expand and tell us if these are new positions within government that we are now creating to administer this fund, or what it pertains to.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the minister that if he wants to do something about fostering healthy communities, they could roll up their sleeves and get very creative about putting Yukoners to work and having some jobs for Yukoners, besides the 700 and some odd weeks that he says are going to come out of this program. I think I can just go back and pull his questions to our Economic Development minister about how he arrived at that figure and see if he's got any more substantive evidence than what he thought our minister had.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, while these projects will create some short-term work in the communities, what is really required is for this government to get busy and create some long-term opportunities for Yukon, and that would foster much healthier communities than these projects.

Having replied to that ministerial statement, I want to just put on the record and ask, Mr. Speaker, for you to make a ruling as to the legitimacy of such a statement in this Legislature. On May 12, 1997, the minister rose to announce a similar policy that wasn't yet formed, even, and took advantage of ministerial statements to do it. Standing Order 11(3) on ministerial statements says, "a minister may make a short factual statement of government policy." These things could be announced in press releases, as they were in the past.

Mr. Speaker, we heard this member stand yesterday and criticize the opposition about using the time in this House wisely because we're on a 35-day sitting limit. And for him to abuse the Standing Order on making a ministerial statement is wrong and cuts into House time.

I suggest that he ought to use House time wisely, too.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to make a ruling at some point on ministerial statements.

Thank you.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to this ministerial statement on behalf of the Yukon Liberal Party. The Yukon Liberal Party supports spending money with communities to support economic development. We are also supportive of the idea that the initiative should come from the communities. What we are opposed to is three or four Cabinet ministers dispensing the goodies - $3.5 million worth of goodies - to communities all over the Yukon.

The larger scale projects that will be okayed in the future will all carry long-term O&M costs.

The Yukon government has frozen transfer payments to Yukon municipalities again this year. It is clear that they have no intention of helping with the long-term O&M costs of these facilities. I hope the minister will keep that in mind as he continues to sign off on these projects.

What the Yukon Liberal Party has proposed in the past, and what I repeat today, is that there should be legislation to administer this program. There should be a governance; there should be a framework to administer this program. Legislation should include the appointment of an independent board to review projects and disburse dollars. This would eliminate the pork barrel smell that surrounds the fund in the past and continues to linger today.

If the NDP does not see fit to hand over the control of this money to an independent board, then we believe that the money should be used for other purposes.

While it is obvious we need economic development, we need a plan, not an ad hoc creation of a half-million dollar facility with long-term O&M commitments being passed on to cash-strapped towns and cities. Handing out money always makes governments popular in the short term. It is not a substitute for long-term economic planning or long-term economic development in our communities.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'm so pleased to respond to the members opposite. Mr. Speaker, this is not, as the Yukon Party characterized it, the only answer to the economy, but just one element of the plan we've put together to deal with the economic situation in the territory. I think it is something that is very key to our motto, which is that we listen to the communities when we act.

Mr. Speaker, these are people priorities. These are local priorities. This is not the CDF board priorities or applications that are put forward. These are put forward by the local communities. The ministers and the people who work on the decisions surrounding this are accountable to this Legislature and accountable to the people.

How dare the Liberals stand up and talk about frozen block funding in the communities, when their Liberal cousins in Ottawa hacked and slashed the block funding to this territory - seven percent; $20 million in reductions. But did we pass that on to the municipalities? No.

So, Mr. Speaker, how dare they.

I also want to say that, with regard to the issue of whether or not this is within the realm of order in this Legislature, I would say that this government has every right to lay out our public agenda in this House. It is not just about responding to the opposition. We're here to inform the public as to what the agenda of this government is, and it's perfectly consistent with that to lay out government policy and announcements and initiatives surrounding this, and it's perfectly within the jurisprudence of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the members opposite, you know, the Liberal Party in particular, one promise they made to the electorate was to not be confrontational. So far, they have been breaking that at a regular rate and, as you see with the direction of the new leader, they are becoming increasingly more chippy and more confrontational in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that just last December, in 1996, when we announced the predecessor to this project, the CPI, the same member who just criticized the CDF said that she was most pleasantly surprised to see the ministerial statement on the community projects initiative. She said that the minister has done a good thing this Christmas. And the member from Riverside in just May of 1997 said - and I quote - that: "The community development fund has on occasion been instrumental in helping communities develop worthwhile facilities."

Mr. Speaker, just a few months later, in February of 1998, the new Liberal leader, who has been listening to the pied piper on the right here, the leader of the official opposition, waltzing over to that side, reuniting the right and going back home, says, "One step the government could take -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. Mr. Harding: "One step the government could take is to abolish the CDF." So, Mr. Speaker, we've seen that as they struggle to find their identify, they head back home.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Harding: So, Mr. Speaker, a vote against the CDF is a vote against these projects, and I will ensure that the people in Tagish, the people in Dawson, the Signpost Seniors in Watson, the people in Mayo and the people responsible for the soup kitchen renovations know that the Liberals and Tories voted against their projects, because without the CDF, these projects would not exist. They would be lost in some bureaucratic boondoggle within the departments as priorities are fought to be established.

Mr. Speaker, this is a responsive way of dealing with issues that are put forward by the communities. The Liberals and the Tories have voted against these projects and the CDF. I can't see the difference. Can you see the difference?

Canada-Yukon labour market development agreement

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of our government to provide opportunities for Yukon people to develop the skills and knowledge they need to find work and to participate fully in the economy. I am pleased, therefore, to rise and report to this House about a historic agreement our government signed on January 24 with the Government of Canada.

The Canada-Yukon labour market development agreement includes a commitment of more than $16 million to help people who are out of work over the next five years. It also gives the Yukon a new level of control over the design and delivery of employment support programs.

As Minister of Education, I signed this agreement here in Whitehorse with my colleague, the Minister of Health and Social Services and the federal Minister of Human Resources Canada. The federal government will continue to deliver and fund programs and services to help Yukon people get their first jobs or re-enter the workforce if they've been away from it.

Such programs can cover a number of areas. They can include job counselling, help for unemployed people to start their own businesses, loans and grants to enable workers to improve their skills, and partnerships with employers to create jobs or work experiences to improve long-term job prospects for out-of-work Yukoners.

The key element of the Canada-Yukon labour market development agreement is that these programs will now be managed in a partnership between the territorial and federal governments. The labour market management committee held its first joint meeting on February 5. This is the first step in a process that will help local decision makers get more people back to work.

A labour market information subcommittee has been formed, and a labour market plan for 1998-99 will be ready later this spring. In the near future, the committee will determine how it will consult with First Nations, the francophone community, and other groups and organizations. Costs of the committee will be borne by Human Resources Development Canada, from their regional operations budget.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, just spoke about the economic challenges facing the territory at this time and some of the measures our government is taking to provide jobs for Yukon people in the short term. The Canada-Yukon labour market development agreement clearly adds to our ability to address the needs of Yukon workers, both in the present and in the future. It also reinforces our government's long-term commitment to building a stronger, more diversified economy that provides more jobs and economic opportunities for Yukon people.

Mr. Phillips: When I heard this statement today by the minister, I had this strange feeling come over me. Mr. Speaker, I had this feeling - I think the term is déjà vu - like I'd heard it before. So, I checked around, and I have heard it before. As we've heard already today, last April this government announced that it had reinitiated its CDF fund. Today, it reannounced that it's reinitiated its CDF fund. In January of this year - on January 24, the federal Minister of Labour, Pierre Pettigrew, was here, and he announced a $16 million agreement with the Yukon government, and today the minister rose on her feet and reannounced a labour market agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that is bankrupt of new ideas.

And they're coming into this House, expending valuable time of the House - as the Member for Faro said yesterday, we have to use our time in the House wisely - abusing what I believe, Mr. Speaker, are the rules of this House that talk about making a short statement on policy and not reannouncing old federal initiatives, that were announced well over two months ago.

It appears that this government is already out of new initiatives to announce. The ministerial statement about the historic Canada-Yukon labour market development agreement is nothing new to speak of. In fact, a month ago, two months ago - "The labour market development agreement provides for cooperative management with the federal and territorial governments. Pierre Pettigrew has indicated that they are willing to look at ways to help Faro. First Nations like the agreement, too." Moorcroft - this is the minister that announced it today - was speaking to the media on January 26, a month and one-half ago, when it was already announced, telling us that, "The aboriginal labour force alliance has indicated to us that they are supportive of the Yukon government's direction with this labour market development agreement and certainly it's in the interests of both Yukon government and First Nations that we work collaboratively on training programs. We've an indication that the willingness is there to do that." And they even had the Social Services minister, Dave Sloan, getting in on the announcement.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, they didn't get enough media back then on the announcement and they figured, if they waited till the feds left town, the people who gave them the $16 million, they could reannounce it now and maybe they could take credit for all of it.

But it's kind of a sneaky way to deal with these kinds of agreements.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good agreement, but it's nothing new to report. While we welcome every opportunity for Yukon people to develop the skills and knowledge they need to find work, it's important that there are jobs waiting for Yukoners, rather than these people being trained and leaving for other provinces in this country to find employment. And we know now that many of our truckers, many of our trained people, are now exiting this territory to find jobs elsewhere because our unemployment rate is so high and this government has failed to produce anything that will bring that rate down. And they certainly won't do it with their $3 million community development fund.

In light of these tough times, it is incumbent on the government to establish a climate that's conducive to the growth of our economy, and not one that discourages investment, like they seem to be doing.

There was not a lot of information about the agreement back in January and even less information about the agreement now - the reannouncement of the agreement. Maybe the minister can tell us, then - if she's prepared to blow her horn here today and say this is a great thing - how much per year Yukoners can expect to see from the agreement. What is the makeup of the committee? Are representatives from the mining, forestry and tourism sectors involved in the committee, and if not, why not?

In January, the Minister of Health and Social Services stated that he'd be interested in the agreement to assist with certain equity groups, such as individuals with disabilities, and opportunities for developing some programs in that regard. Now, it's been two months since things have been going, so maybe the minister can provide us with an update on that.

With respect to the closure of the Faro mine that was mentioned a month ago, will funds be made available for the people of Faro to assist them with some retraining opportunities? Will there hopefully be a light at the end of the tunnel and jobs for those people in the Yukon when they're retrained? Will there be any partnerships made with the mining, forestry and tourism industry to provide training opportunities in these sectors?

Those are some questions I have for the minister that were not provided back on January 24, when the minister announced it the first time, and isn't provided here on March 4 ...

Speaker: The member has half a minute.

Mr. Phillips: ... when the minister announced it the second time.

I'm just hoping that maybe when the minister comes back -

Speaker: The member's time has elapsed.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Duncan: I am truly pleased to respond to this ministerial statement on behalf of the Yukon Liberal Party caucus. We are extremely pleased to see the Yukon government working in partnership with the federal government to help Yukoners return to work.

When the agreement was originally announced - and I attended that media session and the signing - the Minister of Education described it as a true example of the flexibility and dynamic nature of the Canadian federation. This is one point on which the minister and I see eye to eye.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the federal Liberal Minister of Human Resources, the Hon. Pierre Pettigrew ...

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please. Order.

Ms. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

... who made the trip to Yukon in January to make this announcement. The minister had not been to the Yukon before, and when he found out the agreement was ready to be signed, he wanted to be here himself to hear first hand from Yukoners. Under the new agreement, employment programs and services will be designed and managed in partnership with the territorial government to reflect the priorities of Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that the federal Liberal government will continue to fund these made-in-Yukon employment strategies from the employment insurance account. The federal Liberal government will direct over $16 million from that account to support active employment measures in Yukon.

These will include things like targeted wage subsidies, job creation partnerships, employment assistance services and skills, loans and grants. The details that were provided at the media briefing outline how much is coming to the Yukon per year and some of the options available under the program.

I'm pleased and honoured to rise in this House today in what should more appropriately be a tribute, rather than a ministerial statement, to the Canada federal Liberal Yukon partnership.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are the master of the mixed message. They took great exception and said that we were showing disrespect for this House if we did not announce initiatives in the Yukon Legislative Assembly, and they criticized us severely when we did not announce, in their minds, initiatives in this House in a timely fashion.

Now, I guess the official opposition doesn't like it when we have good news to announce, but nonetheless, we are going to bring news to this House and to the people in the territory through the Yukon Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition indicated that it was a good agreement, and then he said he didn't know what was in it and he wanted a breakdown of costs and wanted to know what types of programs were involved, and I can tell the member that rather than read the statement again - because they have taken exception to the statement - we will be happy to provide him with a copy of the information that was delivered earlier.

The Liberal Party itself seems to have a bit of a quandary. They want to distance themselves from the federal Liberal government when there is any bad news, when there are cuts to transfer payments or when there is employment insurance legislation that seriously erodes the unemployment insurance scheme that we used to have in this country available for unemployed workers. Nevertheless, they also want to be right on board when they believe there is a tribute due to Human Resources Development Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Labour Market Management Committee is going to be an effective partnership between the federal and territorial governments. We will continue to work with the community through the joint management committee on labour market initiatives and look forward to being able to deliver some successful programs to the Yukon public and to the unemployed workforce.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Parks Canada, proposed park for Teslin area

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Renewable Resources concerning a proposed new national park in the Teslin area.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Parks Canada has held some meetings with Teslin residents. One of those meetings was held with the Teslin Renewable Resource Council and I understand that the Minister of Renewable Resources was also present at that meeting. They also had meetings with the Teslin Tlingit First Nation with respect to the proposal.

I find that, Mr. Speaker, somewhat confusing. It seems like we're pitting one group against the other because the Teslin Tlingit First Nation is represented on the renewable resource council and I believe the message that was given to Parks Canada and the minister was: thank you, but we're not interested in another national park in that area, but the Teslin Tlingit First Nation told them they were.

I would like the minister to confirm today, for this House, is, in fact, a national part of 10,000 square kilometres being considered for the Wolf Lake area of the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Well, it is no secret that our government is pursuing a protected areas strategy and is working in conjunction with the people of the Yukon and all affected people, including industry. We are going to be sticking to those initiatives that are being brought forward by the people.

We are aware of the park proposal and we've been talking to Teslin and the renewable resource council in this regard. There is interest in a national park in the Teslin area. It is consistent with protecting the ecosystem through the protected areas strategy. We feel that a park could be established in that area.

Right now we don't know what the size of the park is, what the real size would be. There have been a couple of boundary lines that have been put forward to us, but none that we have really seen that would tell us what the true numbers really are.

We are continuing to work with Parks Canada on this, and we will be continuing to bring forward our protected areas strategy.

Mr. Ostashek: The minister says he doesn't know the size, but I've been advised that they are going to set aside 10,000 square kilometres as a park reserve. In fact, I understand that a feasibility study is going to start next month. I'm somewhat amazed and somewhat surprised that the minister stands in the House today and says he is supportive of this, yet we didn't hear a ministerial statement from him about it, which we have on other issues. In fact, I would suggest to the minister that the government is very gun shy on this one and was trying to keep it quiet. Can the minister tell me if, in fact, he did tell the renewable resource council that the Yukon territorial government was in favour of a national park in the Wolf Lake area?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: What I've said is that we have been putting together, with the general public, a protected areas strategy, to which renewable resource councils, First Nations, the general public, and so on, are all providing input. I said that we would be looking at all the ecoregions and having a representative of protected areas in those places. I did not say that we were supportive of what was presented by Parks Canada. We will be continuing to work with the protected areas first, and that's our position with that.

Mr. Ostashek: I thank the minister for that, and I'll give him the opportunity to clear the record right here and now for some very concerned Yukoners about where this government is going in protecting the environment and all the parks that are being designated in a time of economic downturn in the territory. All of these things, as the members opposite know, do create uncertainty.

I want - the Member for Faro will get his chance. I'm talking to the Minister of Renewable Resources now.

The minister has said that they are going ahead with their protected areas strategy, and we, on this side of the House, have been supportive of that. We are a little concerned with the speed at which they're progressing. As well, this government is seeking a major expansion to the proposed Tombstone Park, which is of much concern to resource developers in the Yukon in the mining and logging industries. I want to ask the minister if he can tell the House and Yukoners today: is the proposed new national park going to be part of the protected areas strategy, or is this going to be more land set aside, on top of the proposal of the territorial government and their protected areas strategy? There's a big difference, and I would like the minister to be very clear with the public. Is this another 10,000 square kilometres that's going to be set aside for the park, over and above the protected areas strategy?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: First of all, to get an understanding of what we're doing with protected areas, we've had advisory committees work on putting together this strategy - the interest groups, mining industry, outfitters, and so on. The strategy is not there to identify pieces of land for parks or areas to be protected. It is a how-to book; how do we go about this process in designating protected areas. There's a big difference in where the member's coming from.

In regard to the 10,000 square miles being over and above, I don't know what the numbers are to what Parks Canada's putting forward, but I've said we would be using the protected areas first through the Yukon government. We're not sponsoring the park. We've said we have an interest in the area. It's an ecosystem that we would like to see some protection for. That's basically the position that we continue to take on it.

Question re: Education, Robert Service School portables

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. On Monday night, my colleague, the Member for Riverdale North, raised the issue of Robert Service School portable classrooms. The minister's response was heard all the way back in Dawson by my constituents. In fact, it still continues to bounce off the walls in Dawson.

The mayor of our community and the Robert Service school council took issue with much of what the minister had to say. I understand the minister is in receipt of an open letter from Mayor Everitt concerning the lease agreement with the government over these portable classrooms.

Can the minister advise the House if she has signed the portable lease with the City of Dawson and has since recanted her statements, or does there still exist a state of open animosity between the minister and many of my constituents over this issue?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is going to have to speak for himself in regard to any animosity he may feel. The practice of this government and the practice of the Department of Education is to take our lead from school councils.

In the matter of the agreement between the department and Dawson City for the lease on the land that the portables sit on, I have signed the lease agreement and I've also spoken with the school council. I must repeat, for the record, as I confirmed in another conversation with the chair of the school council last night, that the Robert Service school council had no opportunity to view the City of Dawson land exchange proposal that the mayor brought down to Whitehorse until I provided it to them with a request for their input, because we take our lead from school councils.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I'm most pleased that the minister has had a spiritual awakening, finally seen the light, signed an agreement, recognizing that she is not above the law and her department is not above the law.

Can the minister advise the House if she will now go to Dawson, sit down with the school council, sit down with mayor and council, and work out an amicable solution that will best serve the students?

Will the minister commit to this undertaking?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the Robert Service school council. I have been in Dawson and I have also met with school councils from around the territory at the annual gathering of school council chairs, which this government supported when the previous government cut back their funding. And, yes, I will continue to work with the school council chair.

The school councils have made it very clear, and have repeated to me their request, that the Robert Service school council take the lead on education issues in Dawson City. That, in fact, is what the Education Act reads, Mr. Speaker. That is what I, as a Minister of Education, honour and respect.

Mr. Jenkins: I am very pleased to see that the minister is gaining a very much needed understanding of her role and her department's role in this issue. You know, to clear the record, the minister has stonewalled on a meeting between the mayor and the city manager for some many months. A half-an-hour meeting was all it would have taken to resolve this issue. She's refused and refused and refused continuously to me, and the amount of time that the minister has spent on this issue has been very, very minimal, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister assure the House that now she presently has a clear understanding of the agreement between her department and the City of Dawson, and this time she will honour and abide by the terms of this agreement?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, it's the member opposite who seems to have some misunderstandings here. I can tell the member, and I can tell the people of Dawson, as they know, that I will continue to take the lead from the Robert Service school council, and that we will continue to work with all school councils in looking at meeting the priorities in the territory for all of the educational needs of all of our students.

Question re: Education, mathematics curriculum consultation

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. I asked the minister yesterday if she had met with the Yukon Teachers Association, who have expressed concerns about the new math curriculum introduced at the K to 7 level. The minister said that she has had meetings with the Yukon Teachers Association.

Would the minister tell this House when those meetings took place, who was present and what topics were discussed?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the supplementary questions the member will come to some point. I don't know whether she is asking me to table agendas of meetings that I've held with the Yukon Teachers Association.

I think it's fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that both I and the Yukon Teachers Association are making sincere efforts to maintain an honest and open relationship. I was speaking with the Yukon Teachers Association last week and will continue to meet with them.

Ms. Duncan: Perhaps the minister will provide those details by legislative return. I don't think the meetings have taken place, and I don't believe this minister really holds true to the partnerships in education philosophy.

The facts are that, this year, there's a new math curriculum. It was introduced at the elementary school level - out with the old, in with the new. Fact two: the math consultant for the Department of Education spent the first half of this year in an acting principal capacity, not helping teachers introduce an entirely new curriculum. Fact three: the inservices for teachers to help them with teaching this new curriculum are not taking place in all schools, contrary to what the minister said yesterday. Fact four: the new curriculum has problems that teachers, parents and school councils are expressing grave concerns about. Fact five: the minister has not met first hand with teachers to admit there's a problem with the way the math curriculum has been implemented.

Will the minister schedule a meeting with her professional partners in education - the Yukon Teachers Association - on this specific subject: the new K to 7 math curriculum. Will she do that?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The member opposite seems to be labouring under some misapprehensions as to what the duties of the Minister of Education entail. It is not, as I see it, my responsibility to help teachers to implement curriculum.

Let me go over some of the facts that the member seems to have ignored. The facts are that, when the math curriculum was brought into place, math inservicing was provided for Yukon teachers. The fact is that superintendents and curriculum consultants continue to meet with the schools to discuss student and teacher assistance, teaching practices and strategies, program organization and assessment practices. The fact is that new resources have been provided for students and teachers for September, in bringing forward new curriculum.

The officials in the Department of Education are doing their job to do their work to support the curriculum and to support the teachers in the schools.

Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the minister truly believes that that's what's happening, then I invite her to table a legislative return and demonstrate and list, by school, the inservices that have been held, the resources that have been supplied and that all schools in the Yukon, in fact, have those resources.

Mr. Speaker, our children at school have a responsibility. They have a responsibility to apply their skills and graduate with an education. The teachers, our professional partners, have a responsibility to do their professional best. The government has a responsibility to provide a learning environment and to work with these partners in education.

The responsibility stops at the minister's desk. She has the responsibility to the children of the Yukon to ensure that this math curriculum in instituted so that they can gain a strong education and graduate, able to solve problems in math, able to learn. She is abandoning children. When is she going to accept her responsibility?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is being -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please, order.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: - not simply confrontational but is being nonsensical.

Mr. Speaker, we take the responsibility for ensuring that there is a good education program available for all students in all Yukon schools very seriously. We will continue to support teachers in implementing curriculum changes. We will continue to work hard, both at the political level and at the departmental level.

If the member believes that she has some evidence to show that we've been lacking, I invite her to bring forward suggestions on how it may be improved, because we do attempt to continue to make improvements.

Question re: Education, mathematics curriculum consultation

Ms. Duncan: The Minister of Education doesn't believe that I'm doing my job as the Education critic. Well, I believe that the Minister of Education is not doing her job.

In one morning - that doesn't speak to the previous 18 months - I've spoken with concerned parents, a school council chair, three separate teachers, and the president of the Yukon Teachers Association. I can do that, and I'm the critic for six different departments. The minister has the responsibility for only three.

When will she quit hiding behind her officials and listen to Yukoners? When will she meet with the Yukon Teachers Association and concerned parents about the brand-new K to 7 math curriculum?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the member opposite is not offering to take over responsibility for scheduling for the Minister of Education.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, I can tell the member that I am available to meet with people, that I make phone calls to parents and to school councils and talk to teachers and talk to the Yukon Teachers Association. I'd like the member to come to the point and to ask her question and indicate just what exactly she feels it is that needs to be done to improve the math inservicing, if that is what she's after.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we've had a lot of discussion in this House about the school achievement indicators program and the scores. The area the Yukon did not do well in is problem-solving. The new math curriculum at the K-7 level is focused on problem-solving. All the new math curriculums in the world are not going to help Yukon students if the teachers do not get the support they need and if the minister will not listen when the teachers are telling her that there's a problem.

Will the minister meet with the teachers to hear, first hand that there is a problem with the implementation of the new K to 7 math curriculum? Will she schedule that meeting?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is bringing forward her request for meetings that I should have. I make myself available to have meetings with people, both by reaching myself and by responding to requests directly from constituent groups who want to meet with me. I can assure the member that we will continue to offer support to teachers through math inservicing, through the resources that we provide to teachers, and through other measures, such as the information sessions that have been held at some schools for parents.

Ms. Duncan: If the minister would take the time to meet with the math teachers and the teachers who have expressed concern about this curriculum, she would hear first hand that some are using old math curriculum because they haven't had the inservices. Some classes are using new math curriculum, and there's a great concern among parents that there's going to be quite a mixture and that students are going to continue to fail when they reach grade nine.

The new curriculum was introduced quickly, following the B.C. example. Since the minister doesn't want to hear from Yukoners, has she contacted her B.C. counterparts? How well is the program going down there? Has she asked that question, since she doesn't seem to want to meet with Yukoners?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I'm happy that the member opposite thinks that she is doing her job, and I want to let her know that the department is working hard with other partners to resolve problems. Professional and qualified people are dedicated to the task of doing their jobs well.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I met with the Yukon Teachers Association last week. This was not raised as an issue. On the subject of the curriculum available in B.C. and Alberta, the western Canada consortium has been working together on the new math curriculum, and they continue to work together.

Yes, I've asked for questions and updates from the curriculum consortium and, yes, both as a minister and the department, we're working hard to make the new math curriculum a success.

Question re: Child support payments

Mr. Phillips: Yesterday, I raised the question with the minister responsible for the Housing Corporation about changes to the way child support payments are taxed and whether the minister would commit to changing his department's policy of deducting 25 percent of a tenant's child support payments for rent. The minister replied that this is an issue that has come up over the past year and that he'd take it under advisement.

I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that the changes have been in effect for almost a year, since last April. Surely, one would think that the minister has had more than enough time to review the changes and, in turn, more than enough time to make the change in policy. Again, in the recent Budget Address, the Government Leader himself said, "It's shameful that in a society as privileged as this that Canadian people, including more than three million children, continue to live in conditions of poverty." If the government is so ashamed about the poverty conditions in Canada with respect to children, then why has it taken over a year for them to react to this initiative by the federal government, to make sure that the money that was supposed to be paid for the children ended up in the homes, with the mothers and the children, so that they could spend it as the federal government planned?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I understand where the member is coming from. We do feel the same way. We have been trying to work with the federal government on this. We have, in our social housing, an agreement with CMHC, and they have policies that we are bound to follow. They have not made those changes. It is the federal government that can make those changes down to us. What we've been doing in the past while is to - CMHC has been talking to the rest of the provinces and territories to devolve the program down to the territories. We said we would not do this if there was a cost to Yukoners, and there are some problems with it. We've given the go-ahead to the corporation to go ahead and negotiate, and they have been doing that. We've identified problems, and we will not devolve a program down like that, if it's going to cost Yukoners.

Mr. Phillips: I'm very disappointed that the minister has chosen to blame the federal government. Mr. Speaker, it's his government that has taken the position that child poverty has to be stopped. For a year, this minister has had the ability to make changes to make sure that the money that is paid to his corporation could be returned to the children and women who that money should be returned to. We don't have to wait for the federal government on this; we just have to have the government honour a commitment it made in the budget speech and honour a commitment it's made to Yukon people.

Give the money to the children. The minister has the ability. The rent's paid to the minister's department. The minister can give the money back to the people who deserve it. Why doesn't he do it?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: The member wants us to jump out of agreements that we've had and have been in place for many years.

I've said that we were looking into the matter of bringing down CMHC to the local level here, and we're continuing to work on that. We would like to see flexibility in that and we've given direction to the corporation to do just that, but not at the cost of Yukoners. We are bound by the policies that they put in place. If we were to change the policies, we may as well get out of the agreement and that program would no longer be with us then. I don't think that that is in the best interest of Yukoners.

Mr. Phillips: Well, he may not want it to be at the cost of Yukoners, but right now it's at the cost of these children. Those are the people that are not seeing this money right now: the children. This government has made a commitment to change that.

Mr. Speaker, they can do something about it. They don't have to wait for the federal government. It's almost been a year. How long is it going to take? If the federal government doesn't do something in the next five years, are we still going to use the federal government for an excuse?

This government can do something now. It has the wherewithal to do it. It can change the policy with the Yukon Housing Corporation and reimburse those mothers and children the money they were supposed to receive in the first place. When will the minister do it and will he make it retroactive, so that it will go back to the date when the money was first taken away from the mothers - I think it was April 1, 1997?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the member, I guess, was not listening. We have been working toward this, and we are looking at devolving the program to the Yukon. At such a time, we would be able to have some flexibility to make changes.

The federal government brought in a change like this, and it's inconsistent with the rest of the programs. We recognize it, and if it's in the interest of the Yukon Liberals, maybe they can make a phone call or two to their cousins in the federal government. But we're continuing to work on that, but not at a cost to Yukoners. There are a lot more implications in bringing down this program than this one, but we would like to see that flexibility.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Motion No. 93, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Motion No. 93

Speaker: It is moved by the Member for Klondike

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) alcohol and drug abuse are a major problem for Yukon society; and

(2) that the cancellation of the Government of Yukon's contract with the Crossroads Treatment Centre will have a very serious impact on Yukoners who are trying to recover from alcohol and drug abuse addictions; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to maintain its funding of the Crossroads Treatment Centre.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to introduce this motion for a number of reasons. It's timely to speak to the motion before us, in light of the Minister of Health and Social Services' recent announcement, to inform members about changes being made to the alcohol and drug addictions treatment program provided by the alcohol and drug services branch.

As the minister said, the new program will offer a 14-day medical detoxification process, a 12-day treatment program and an additional 14-day program for clients who require additional supports.

It wasn't that long ago that members of this House spoke to a similar motion recognizing alcohol and drug abuse problems in Yukon. It was at that time that all members put forward their views about the abuse that was taking place and how we should be addressing the problem.

There was, Mr. Speaker, no mention whatsoever of the imminent closure of the Crossroads treatment centre. There were suggestions raised as to how we could be improving our services to those in need, but nothing about the government and its plans to cancel its contract with Crossroads.

As I mentioned the other day in response to the minister's statement, we, on this side of the House, do not profess to know all of the answers, but we are well-aware that it is irresponsible of any government to play politics with such an important problem, its cure and its treatment.

In short, Mr. Speaker, the minister is playing a very dangerous political game which will have a serious impact on Yukoners who are trying to recover from alcohol and drug addiction. Crossroads' proven residential treatment program is being axed for an as yet unnamed and unproved community treatment program with very little, if any, consultation with anyone.

The minister quite simply saw a quick fix in meeting an NDP election commitment to provide a homeless shelter. He knew there were some First Nations concerns about recent changes at Crossroads and he took deliberate advantage of those concerns without even talking to the Crossroads board to hear their side of the story.

The minister saw this as an opportunity to reduce his ever-escalating Health and Social Services budget. By housing the shelter and the treatment centre together, he'd initially hoped he would save over $100,000 annually.

The minister acted as the judge and jury before the Crossroads board even presented their case.

Members of the Yukon public have been speaking out to save a program that has served Yukoners well for some 26 years. A petition calling upon this NDP government to maintain its funding of the Crossroads treatment centre is currently being circulated and is receiving overwhelming support.

Yukoners should be concerned about the new direction the government is taking. The question Yukoners should be asking is if a home treatment program can replace a 28-day intensive residential program that has proven itself to be effective in the past. Can an 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. government program effectively replace a 24-hour service provided by a non-government organization? Who, in government, can someone call after the lights go out in the government offices when they are combatting alcohol and drug abuse? That job is a 24-hour-a-day job, seven days a week, Mr. Speaker.

When you have a program like Crossroads, which has served Yukoners so well for so long, you don't just terminate it arbitrarily. If there are problems, you analyze the problems, you correct the problems, and move forward.

The decision to close Crossroads was undoubtedly politically motivated. Many people in and around Whitehorse and Yukon have offered their opinions, and these are individuals who have been affected by Crossroads.

And, Mr. Speaker, this is what these individuals have to say.

"Crossroads saved my life. You cannot quit drinking when you live in the environment that sent you into the hell of the alcoholic world. No one who has ever been there could understand how the alcoholic thinks. Crossroads worked with me because most of the workers there had been alcoholics who no longer drank the firewater that had been killing them. I wonder if any of Mr. Sloan's new staff will be qualified. If they are not, his program, in my opinion, will fail. No one with real problems will go there, and he will claim he cured the Yukon. The taxpayers will end up picking up the tab for a service that does not exist in reality."

And a second opinion, Mr. Speaker:

"Does the government think that most drinkers are stupid? Most of us are very intelligent. That is why we drink. They are not at home in the world with all the stupidity that goes on around them, frustrating them to the point that they drink to save their sanity. Most of these lost souls are looking for a reason to live. Crossroads gave them acceptance and a key. That key was a belief in God. The belief that only God and yourself can save you from living and dying in hell is what you have to find out. You have to do this yourself; no one else. You need someone to talk to, but if they try to drive your thoughts right out of your head, you head right back to the bottle. The worst thing that can happen to you is to be lectured. You have already lectured yourself enough, and your shame for what you are is only understood by someone who has been in the same shape. Is the government a bunch of ex-drunks? If not, stay out of the dry-out business."

And again another opinion, Mr. Speaker:

"Some people who are on the edge of death hate the socialists. They would not go to the dry-out centre for that reason. A drinker has enough problems getting through a day. Place some political propaganda on his plate and he'll bolt like a spooked horse. An alcoholic or a drug addict is looking for control over his own life. As we all know, socialism seeks to control people. They want everyone to be docile workers, pay taxes, keep their keepers in comfort. Don't pray to God; pray to the mighty Stalin for your bread and butter, then Stalin tells you what to do. You live to serve the almighty government. You think drinkers don't know that and fight it? That is why half of them drink. Someone is trying to control them, and the only way to get away from them is to get lost in a big drunk and forget about it - all of them. Tell Sloan to keep his nose out of Crossroads; keep it going."

And another opinion, Mr. Speaker: "An alcoholic is either a very mature person who can't tolerate his fellow man, or he is a weak child who has refused to grow up - sometimes a combination of the two. Crossroads was staffed by the former, and that was why it worked with me. The only way a man or woman can learn to tolerate the greed, selfishness and meanness of their fellow man is through God. Take God out of Crossroads and you lose the battle. Put some primed-up pups in charge with university degrees, and you lose the last faint hope for drunks. What the hell do those manicured young fools -

Unparliamentary language

Speaker: Order. I would ask the member to refrain from using abusive and insulting language.

Withdrawal of remark

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I retract that.

Mr. Jenkins: ". . . What do you do to those manicured young fools, and what do they know about real life? They have never lived, and some of them never will. No, I am not in favour of the government running Crossroads. I am glad that I had a chance to heal while they were still operating. I needed a place to think, and they gave that to me. I'm too old to make much difference in the future, but I'm glad I won't be around to see if things like this keep going on. We'd be better off in Russia. At least you'd get rid of the government rulers."

And the opinion of another individual touched by Crossroads: "I don't drink or do drugs, but my husband was a terrible drunk before he went to Crossroads. He doesn't drink any more, but we still have problems - he just doesn't drink any more. It helped him to be around people who have been through the same mill. I would have left him if it had not been that he stopped drinking. It was bankrupting us, and our kids were starting to drink, just like their dad. I have no idea why the government would want to close a place that helps people get rid of their drinking or drug problems. I know that liquor sales make the government a lot of money. Maybe they are afraid of losing some revenue."

The testimonies of these people go on and on. From the opinions expressed above, I hope Mr. Sloan will have the decency and compassion to re-fund Crossroads and scrap his plans for spending more of our money on experiments.

That was the opinion of a number of Yukoners that have been affected by Crossroads. Crossroads touched them, helped them and did something to turn their lives around.

With the recent announcement of the government's new and improved alcohol and drug treatment program, there are a number of questions that arise. What savings and how are the savings going to be realized? The minister has issued a statement saying that doing it this way is going to save some $100,000. We can look at the program advanced by the Government of Yukon in the green book, and I'm most interested in who they give credit to. "We would like to thank CSAT, who have provided this information by way of the Internet. CSAT is the Centre for Substance Abuse Treatment, of the substance abuse and mental health service administration. It was created in Washington, D.C. in October 1992, with the Congressional mandate to expand the availability of effective treatment and recovery services for alcohol and drug problems."

Virtually everything in this book, Mr. Speaker, is available on the Internet, and the Internet is a fine source of information. It's, in fact, better than a fine source; it's an excellent source of information. But when you're playing with the lives of people, you want to be sure that the information you're obtaining is tried and true and that it works. That we do not know.

The other area of concern is the decentralization of the program to the rural communities. It's a much needed decentralization, Mr. Speaker, and in questions raised in the House yesterday, the minister left more unanswered questions in his responses to the questions I raised. We were dealing with the healing camps in Old Crow, the healing camps in Mayo and in the balance of the Yukon, and the number of individuals that are treated at these centres and the cost of the treatment and how the effectiveness of these programs was gauged. With Crossroads, approximately $450,000 a year is the cost to the Government of the Yukon, and it works out to just over $2,000 per person attending Crossroads. The wilderness camps appear to start at about $5,000 per individual per month and go up from there, Mr. Speaker.

We have a way of gauging the success of Crossroads. The wilderness camps - some people you talk to recognize that they are effective, but how are we gauging the effectiveness of those programs and the individuals that go through them? There doesn't appear to be any kind of mechanism in place by the minister or by his department.

A number of the initiatives of this government in this area encompass a great deal of First Nations people, as does Crossroads.

When we look at the recovery from the federal government, who have a fiduciary responsibility for health care for First Nations people, we see a tremendous amount of money outstanding to the Government of Yukon for all sectors of health care delivery for First Nations - some $28 million - that has accumulated over the last few years.

Now it would appear to be reasonable to pose the question: are these programs entered into with the blessing of the federal government on the understanding that they're paying the bills or are these just some initiatives of this government? We have to be prudent with our dollars here in the Yukon, but we have to treat those in the Yukon who need treating, which gets us back to Crossroads, which gets us back to the original motion that alcohol and drug abuse are major problems in Yukon society. We have the highest per capita consumption of alcohol in Canada and the cancellation of the Crossroads program is going to have a very serious impact.

Now I guess the minister will state that the jury is still out with these new programs, but we're in kind of a never-never land in the transition period. I have listened to a number of the officials in the government departments who treat this area and who are responsible for this area and they speak very, very well on their topics.

But, speaking very well and addressing the issue of drug and alcohol abuse are not synonymous. When we look at the results obtained from an existing program, there were difficulties with it, as there are going to be difficulties with any program, but why reinvent the wheel? Why not take an existing program that has proven to work and take those components of it that are archaic and need updating and address those areas, and do something before we throw the whole program completely out, turn the world upside down and reinvent the wheel again? That's what the minister has done by abolishing this program.

Mr. Speaker, I'm urging the Government of the Yukon to maintain its funding for the Crossroads treatment centre, sit down with the board of Crossroads and fix the problem there. Get the program up and working. Get it working so that the program at Crossroads continues to treat those of us in Yukon who are unfortunate enough to have a problem with drug and alcohol abuse.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, the member has cast a very wide net but what I'll try to do is address a number of the concerns that he has raised here.

I'd like to thank the members opposite for giving me an opportunity to discuss this, and I'd also like to thank them for the opportunity to perhaps clear up some misapprehensions surrounding the directions that we're going.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt, and there is no doubt in this House, that alcohol and drug abuse are problems in the Yukon. We've had that discussion before, as the member has mentioned. In fact, we had quite a long discussion on it in the fall. I think what we disagree about is how to address the issue in a better way.

I'd like to give this issue some perspective, Mr. Speaker. We need to do a bit of history on this.

The organization known as Crossroads began in 1972 as the Whitehorse halfway house and was largely, at that time, dependent on volunteers. However, since that time, over the number of years, there have been a whole variety of questions raised on the best way to provide alcohol and drug services.

In 1977, there were some issues around management problems, anxiety, unstable management - and I'm quoting this from the Kearns Report, 1981 - followed by gradual program deteriorations and problems. The process of progressive deterioration continued to an eventual closing of the facility in 1979.

Now, that was from the Kearns report in 1981, and there were issues at that point that were identified regarding the program, the nature of the program, and how it was being delivered. It also stated that - and I would like the members to be aware of this little bit - there was a need for a followup and noted widely by many of the persons involved in the study. The followup support would be most viable if it is community based and related to the client in his or her local environment.

It was also apparent that there were several problems presenting themselves: one was a state of communication between YTG - particularly drug and alcohol services - and Crossroads; two, the method of financing; three, program credibility and viability of process. This report suggested that if progress was not made toward those, that the alcohol and drug services should assume full responsibility for Crossroads and terminate any contacts with the board.

That was 1981.

In 1984, the McLaughlin report indicated issues surrounding questions of cultural components and, and I quote here, "Certainly all parties interviewed acknowledged the need for services in the community, which would support the individual after treatment."

So what we're getting back that far were issues such as followup, relapse prevention, et cetera.

The 1988 symposium on drug abuse noted, and I quote again, "Complete recovery requires more than sending someone off to treatment. Adjustments may have to be made to prepare the person who is leaving a small community to cope with the different community where the treatment will take place."

It goes on to note that there are needs in terms of post-treatment transition, so we have this recurring theme. Once again, going back to the MacLaughlin report, it indicated that outpatient after-care was needed, that staff qualifications were questionable and needed to be tightened up, that relapse prevention was needed, and, "A change in treatment paradigm - an exercise in zero-based programming - is needed."

In 1991, a report emerged which raised the issue that areas,such as followup are lacking, especially if you come from a remote community, and the need for local treatment, "Communications between communities and Crossroads is lacking and no cultural component." There was also concern raised with the decrease in the number of admissions to Crossroads since 1986, high staff turnover, questions on clinical supervision and it was also noted that there was some resistance in the organization to change. As well, it also raised some issues around staff training.

The point that I am trying to make is that, from these reports and from some detailed reviews in the past, the problems that we have experienced with Crossroads are not new. Over and over again, these problems are emerging. What they've done is they've taken us to a point where we're looking at some substantial changes and we're going to look at doing it on April 1 of this year.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is time to make some change and, essentially, that's what we're going to do. After some thoughtful and deliberate planning, we are trying to foster healthy communities by making these changes to alcohol and drug services.

The Member for Klondike gave us a rather detailed and somewhat rambling discourse there on this program, and he's addressed a whole variety of issues. What I would like to do is carry on with some of my comments here and then perhaps address some of these in a separate manner.

In 1993, another issue emerged around Crossroads, and the member made a passing reference to it. That was with regard to federal funding. In 1993, there was a significant change when NNADAP withdrew its funding from Crossroads. Since that time, there have been no funds received for programs of this kind from the federal government.

At that time, the Yukon Party was in office and Mr. Phelps was the Minister of Health. Now, Mr. Phelps and I may disagree philosophically, but I was quite surprised to read some of the comments that he had made at that time - interesting comments - because he said that "the indications we had up until recently, there wasn't much of a demand for more than 10 beds". He was making reference to proposed cutbacks.

Another reason that we are looking at moving - to some extent - away from the kind of programming they're doing and offering more day programming, rather than residential programming, is so that people in the Yukon who live in Whitehorse could go home during the day and return home at night. We are also looking at a broader spectrum of services being offered to the public, and we're looking at the kinds of services that an organization, such as Crossroads, might provide.

Now, here's something that's interesting. I think the former Minister of Health and Social Services - who, as I said, we may not agree philosophically - I think what he's saying in 1993 is that, yes, there are some issues here. Some of the solutions he was proposing at that time, or at least contemplating at that time, are along very similar lines. If I could just follow up a little bit on this, he's beginning to talk about the need for appropriate day programming, services that we envisage, comprehensive strategy, et cetera, et cetera. Many of the same issues that have emerged in our consultations have emerged again at this time.

So, what I'm trying to indicate, Mr. Speaker, is that in this sort of brief history, the programs that we've experienced aren't new. What is new is that up until this time we haven't been addressing them directly. We believe that it is time to address these problems, Mr. Speaker, so that people in the Yukon can benefit.

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to some quotes, and certainly I can acknowledge that people feel a loyalty to an organization, and there are many people over the years that Crossroads at different times has assisted - I don't deny that - but I can also tell the member opposite that I have received a large number of calls and a large number of letters and a number of personal contacts supporting these changes. These contacts have been from First Nations and non-First Nations. They have been from former Crossroads clients. They have been from business people. They have been from individuals. They have been from medical professionals. All of them have told me, and the recurring theme is that we need to look at some changes; we need to change how we are delivering the service.

The member has made some curious kinds of allegations there. He has made some discussions regarding the home treatment versus residential program, and he has tried to portray this as being at odds. I think I'll try to demonstrate a bit later on that that is not the case.

What I can do is that I can talk a little bit about what our relationship with Crossroads has been in the last period of time. As I mentioned the other day in the House, there have been at least 17 meetings held with Crossroads between November 1996 and November 1997 to discuss various aspects of their program. On August 22, 1997, I met with the director and a board member to discuss the proposed closure of Crossroads for the month of September and some of their labour problems.

A number of issues that came to our attention at that point have been referred to by the Member for Klondike in, I might point out, his criticism of Crossroads at the time where he lambasted us and said, "It is important that this facility be available for those who need treatment. It's also important for the Crossroads to provide the type of treatment that the majority of its clientele accept. I believe the situation at the centre demands a full investigation by the minister. Almost half-a-million dollars of taxpayers' money is being provided annually to provide a treatment service. Is Crossroads providing that service?"

At the time, there were issues around there. The member himself acknowledges the issues. The previous Yukon Party health minister had identified some concerns. So, some of the issues that emerged with us, and have been emerging, were issues surrounding dismissal of staff, lawsuits filed against Crossroads by former staff and a former executive director, PSAC lodging a complaint against Crossroads for an unfair labour practice, and I believe describing it as a poisoned work atmosphere, lack of financial accountability - I'll come to that later - and there were also concerns by communities about Crossroads' services and, quite frankly, we had concerns about the closure for the month of September.

Now, I know that people will say, "Well, yes, it was closed for a month. It's always closed for a month." In this case, it was closed for two months and we were essentially left without it for the months of August and September.

I'd also note that there had been a loss of board members over the fall. There were concerns raised about programming. There were concerns raised for the need for continuous uptake, about the resource materials used, about treatment approaches, about staff qualifications, and a variety of issues.

On August 25, 1997, the director of social services wrote to Crossroads asking for a meeting to discuss program delivery, personal issues and community concerns. On August 29, we received a letter from the executive director of Crossroads asking for a meeting on September 4 and announcing, at that time, that they were closing Crossroads for September.

On September 4, the director of social services met with the Crossroads board. On September 5, a letter from the board was sent asking for a restructuring plan. September 26, we received a press release from Crossroads announcing that they would reopen. Also on September 26, we had informed the executive director that we would be visiting communities.

There is one other letter, which I believe is particularly pertinent, and that was on September 17, from our director of social services on the question of outstanding issues. These are some things that I will be talking about in a little while.

Through September and October, our director of ADS visited communities and spoke with alcohol and drug treatment workers. On October 3, ADS staff met with Crossroads regarding the ADS treatment program. On November 17, there was a request to the Crossroads executive director requesting client stats. On November 18, there was a request made for financial statements. On November 19, ADS staff met again with Crossroads regarding the treatment program. On December 2, ADS staff met with Crossroads regarding the treatment program, and then on December 19, the ADM of social services and the director of social services met with the board to inform them we wouldn't be renewing their contract.

We requested, on January 28, audited financial statements. We have requested a meeting on transition plans - a second request on transition plans. I've met with Crossroads employees and union representatives. We have received, finally, some two months after requesting it, a financial statement that is marked, "for discussion purposes only".

So, I guess, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the kinds of contacts that we have made, this is not for lack of effort. The member over there can say that this was something that we just dreamed up or that we did to address the need for a homeless shelter. I guess he wasn't really listening last fall when I was describing that we had gone through some considerable efforts on trying to secure facilities for a homeless shelter. We had taken a look at various and sundry options. This was not a quick fix, as he likes to refer to it.

I was also interested in his allegations and I would really sort of question them - and I suppose perhaps the YGEU might want to raise this one - he has also alleged in his comments earlier that the ADS staff who designed this program were not qualified.

I believe he made some allegations that these people did not have the background, or they did not know the nature of the problems. A rather curious logic.

He made a rather passing remark to the question of where this came from, what kind of basis is this, where is this research?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure. It may be a few years since that member has attended university. It's certainly been a few years since I've attended, but I have been back to university on occasion, and I can tell him that things have progressed a very, very long distance, indeed, from the days when you'd sit there with a card catalogue, and that most of the research base is computerized, and it can be done on a search.

Basically, I guess we can make some reference to what the research tells us. Well, historically, it was believed that the more severe the addiction, the longer the treatment was required. The research that we have right now suggests that is not the case.

Miller and Hester, in 1986, after reviewing 12 controlled evaluations, found not a single study showing that in-patient treatment was superior to non-residential alternatives. A second study concluded that shorter and less intensive approaches are not only more cost effective but, in absolute terms, more effective. The Maudsley Hospital study in London, Edwards and Gauthrie, 1966-67, and again in 1977, concluded that, for male alcoholics, there's no significant difference in outcome between those who'd received out-patient counselling and those who'd received several months of in-patient treatment.

Helen Annis, in 1994, of the Addictions Research Foundation, concluded a study on in-patient versus out-patient treatment. Her treatment, as related, showed that in-patient alcoholism programs of a few months' duration show no higher success rates than period of pre-hospitalization of a few days. Day treatment programs have been found to be equal or superior to in-patient programs, at one-half to one-third the cost.

Martin, in 1990, pointed out that there is an implicit assumption that treatment provided to an individual would be more effective if it were coordinated within and across the services that the client is involved in. The term "continuity of care" reflects this assumption and connotes the importance of coordinating client care over time, as well as a particular moment in time.

So, Mr. Speaker, I know that this probably is the kind of thing that the member is saying those pointy-headed guys over in ADS are dreaming up. But there seems to be a research base here, and a research base that I don't think we can ignore, just because of that member's particular prejudices against any kind of intellectual endeavour.

I'd like to talk a little bit now about what we are proposing, and perhaps the member there would like to make reference. What I indicated in my ministerial statement, which he referred to, is that there is a 14-day detoxification. What we're proposing, as well, is to enhance the medical aspect of this with the addition of some nursing services, followed by a pretreatment program. If clients are from out of town, there will be accommodations provided in the building for up to 42 days. There will be a 12-day program, plus a one-week relapse prevention program, plus an additional 14-day community integration support, if needed. As well, we'll be reviewing recovery as a 24-month process.

Now, what the members are trying to suggest is that there will be no alcohol and drug treatment program available to Yukon people. They are, quite frankly, wrong. The new program, as we outlined, we believe will meet the needs of a greater number of Yukon people in a cost-effective way, and is reflective of our consultations.

Now, there is much being said about the question of consultations. Well, Mr. Speaker, I said it before and I'll say it again, just so the member can get this in his mind. The decision was after consultation, and it was with NNADAP workers, community health workers, social workers, community justice workers, First Nation healing counsellors, RCMP workers, transition home workers, nurses, prevention workers, after-care workers, Yukon College instructors, ministerial representatives, school counsellors, social development coordinators, youth recreation coordinators, and with Crossroads on three occasions. These were held in Carmacks, Pelly, Faro, Mayo, Ross River, Dawson, Watson, Teslin, Beaver Creek, Burwash Landing, Destruction Bay and Haines Junction. They began at the end of September. We went out to get the ideas about how to best serve all Yukon people. It was not us going out with a particular agenda in mind. We went out to get some ideas on where there were gaps, and interestingly enough, many of the same gaps that were identified in 1981, 1984, 1988, 1991 and 1993 reoccurred again and again.

So, the communities told us that they wanted programs based at home, that they need after-care, they need relapse prevention, and community-home integration. I believe that we did a job with consultation, and I believe that we are trying to meet the needs of the communities.

Now, the member there has made a really fascinating kind of comparison when he was trying to kick some holes in what we were suggesting, and part of his logic was, "Well, you're just going to give money out to programs, just wilderness treatment programs. They don't work. Well, look at this. We've got kids there going to them. They don't work. What kind of assessments have you got?" Well, Mr. Speaker, this member here does not understand the difference.

There are two wilderness treatment programs in the Yukon, and I'd just like to give you a bit of an analysis of what they are, because they are not, as the member has implied, the kinds of programs that we are suggesting as possible use of per diems.

There are two wilderness camps, and these are for youth. One is the Wind River camp, which is basically a summer camp, and the other one is the camp in Old Crow, and that offers fall, winter and spring sessions. The children in these camps are coordinated through Social Services or they are coordinated through Whitehorse juvenile offices.

The Wind River one is primarily for adolescent young offenders and the attendance at this camp can be included in a probation order. The Old Crow camp reference is made through a social worker or a probation worker, and they are placed, and priority for attendance is coordinated, through the placement review committee, which is held every week with family and children's services. Children are discussed as to their priority needs: how soon they can get in, when they can be taken, et cetera. The attendance at the Old Crow program, for example, can be included in a probation order if attendance in this program is a condition of probation.

The program assessments that the member has talked about - well, let me just give you a sense of what we've done there. A four-day review of the Old Crow camp was completed by the residential services coordinator in the fall of 1997. Both camps, the base camp and the camp upriver, were visited. All aspects of the camp operations, including camp communications and programming with clients, were discussed. He also met with staff and the clients. The equipment was examined. The meals and the program were reviewed. The camp was observed to be, in his words, "safe, comfortable," and four of the youth graduated from this program successfully.

The previous year, a staff member from Young Offenders had spent a full session at the camp and had looked at the aspects of operations as well working as facilitator in the program.

In terms of effectiveness of the program for high-risk youth, family and children's services have documented that youth have shown positive changes while at the camp. It's not insignificant that some of these children are very, very high-risk and, in some cases, no other option has been effective. And I defy the member, if he really wants to take a look at some comparative statistics, have him take a look at some of the referrals outside that we make for extreme cases.

The camp has been, in particular, valuable for adolescent First Nations females with extreme addiction, suicide or abuse issues, and a number of these young women are now adults and still have a connection with the camp operators. The operators, in the opinion of the department, have shown themselves to be dedicated to the long-term interest of past clients.

So, the member is trying to make a comparison. He is trying to make a comparison between a completely different kind of program in an attempt to cast doubt on the ability of First Nations to make some determinations for themselves as to what kind of programming they are seeking, what kinds of programming they are looking for in their home communities.

As I've said, we've determined that we can provide a program which is responsive to the concerns of communities and we believe we can do it in a more cost-effective manner. I think that if a person really examines - truly examines - the actual cost per client, they will see that the cost per client really comes in around $9,000 at Crossroads, which is a considerable financial difference. We believe that our programming will be somewhat more flexible.

We recognize that no single treatment program will work for everyone and that's why, as I mentioned previously, the new system allows us to empower First Nations communities in some of their own healing programs. I don't know whether the member is suggesting that he knows better than First Nations, but I can tell him that I have met with First Nations and I've heard from them that they are seeking the kinds of programming - and they're looking for support in this regard - that we are suggesting.

Now, he may choose to say, "Well, that doesn't jibe with my idea, so let's just simply dismiss that," but I can tell him, Mr. Speaker, that I have met with people and they've told me some things that they are seeking. They've told me where some of the gaps are in the treatment programs. I am suggesting that I think we have a responsibility to provide the kind of support that people are seeking.

I would like to raise an interesting issue. Someone has said, "Well, nobody knew that this was going to change." Well, I made reference to a letter in September 17, 1997. I would like to say that this does have a certain demonstration. This letter is from our director of social services to the executive director of Crossroads. On September 17, a number of issues are raised in reference to a previous letter that was sent to Crossroads asking for clarification on programs, outlining what those programs will be, what kind of direction they are going and, on that letter of September 17, we make reference to a letter on September 5 and say, "We requested a plan from Crossroads for the restructuring of the treatment program, hiring of new staff, orientation and training. The plan was to contain, at a minimum, such elements. These dates were to be provided where possible: program description, quality assurance, staff orientation, implementation, staff hiring, et cetera. These requests came about" - and I'm reading from the letter - "as a result of Crossroads inability to provide programming at the beginning of September and other issues that have arisen concerning the stability of the organization. We reviewed the material that you've provided and, though you've responded to some of our specific requests, the overall response is not acceptable." We go on to identify where our concerns are. This was in 1997.

Now, at that time, we've expressed concerns that a credible and viable program will not be ready, "Consequently, we are giving Crossroads notice, under Section 15.1 of the agreement, to address and remedy these concerns and, wherein in the opinion of the Yukon, the society failed to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement, the Yukon should give four weeks' written notice to the society to remedy the non-compliance. If that compliance is not achieved, Yukon may terminate the agreement on further one-week written notice of termination to the society."

So the suggestion that this never emerged is simply false. We have been working with this organization to try and remedy these things. We asked for material and, quite frankly, what we were getting was not adequate. I think to argue that this organization had no warning is simply not true. We gave Crossroads months to comply, and unfortunately they were unable to do so.

Mr. Speaker, we've been given a mandate to provide good, responsive government. I believe that we've found a solution based on solid research about treatment trends. I believe we've found a solution based on needs expressed by communities. I'd like to repeat, once again, my offer to any members of this House for a briefing about the program at their convenience. I urge them to take advantage of that offer.

I think, in taking a look at this overall program, the member felt quite free to make some comments and to point out contentions that he'd heard. I made reference to contentions or issues that I had raised or reports that I'd had from individuals. While he may want to trot out some statements, I'd trot out some statements, too. I don't want to get into a battle of press, but I have things, such as an individual writing saying that they believe the changes are qualified, that they've gone through a 42-day program, two weeks following, which has led to success. They suggested that, perhaps, other interests are being put before the needs of the clients.

I have another here from a First Nations person suggesting that people should be concerned about the need to deliver programs in the communities, and suggesting that this is well-placed.

I think the one that I found, in a way, probably the most encouraging, was in the case of a young woman. She contacted our office, and then she chose to write, of her own volition, about her struggle with alcohol and drugs: "I wish that this help had been out there for me." She writes, "I, too, suffer from alcohol and drug addiction and, although I am no longer practicing my addictions, I have been in recovery for a few years and continue to be grateful for the help I received along the way." She goes on, and she talks about fear in recovery. She talks about her fear of going for the one option that she had - the loss of her children. She goes on and talks about if this program that we are suggesting had been in place, she would have been able to take advantage of it.

Mr. Speaker, we can get into a war of press releases. I'm not interested in a war of press releases; I'm not interested in a war of allegations. What I am interested in is a program that will work for people. I'm interested in a program that meets some of the needs that have been expressed to me, that have been expressed to this government, that have been expressed to our departments along the way. I'm not interested in playing politics with anyone's lives. I'm not interested in playing politics with anyone's addictions. I do not have such little regard for the struggle that people have with addictions to suggest, as the member did rather blasély in one of these debates, that if I thought that this was going to work, then I - meaning me - needed treatment.

The struggle for people with addictions is not an easy one, and I don't dismiss this so cavalierly.

Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I am proposing the following amendment.

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I move

THAT Motion No. 93 be amended by deleting the words after "Yukon society; and" and substituting for them the following: "(2) the expansion and revision of the treatment programs will benefit Yukon people who are recovering from alcohol and drug abuse; and THAT this House encourages the Yukon government to proceed with the new programming as planned."

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Government Services

THAT Motion No. 93 be amended by deleting the words after "Yukon society; and" and substituting for them the following: "(2) the expansion and revision of the treatment programs will benefit Yukon people who are recovering from alcohol and drug abuse; and

THAT this House encourages the Yukon government to proceed with the new programming as planned."

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I won't take up too much more time. I think I have conveyed to the members my concerns on this and why I believe that this is the program that we need to begin.

I said earlier that I am not denigrating the work of Crossroads. Crossroads has at times provided service for people, has provided assistance for people, but I believe there are ways we could work better, and I believe there are ways we could work in a more constructive, more concerted manner.

Let's just address some of these facts. What services are we offering by this? Well, for one thing, we are offering the chance to participate in a 10-day medical detox program, followed by a 12-day treatment, 10-day after-care.

Mr. Phillips: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Point of order

Speaker: Point of order has been called.

Mr. Phillips: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I'm concerned that the amendment that's before us in the House today changes the intent of the motion. In fact, it reverses the whole intent of the motion. The motion that's in front of us today talks about maintaining the funding of the Crossroads treatment centre, and the amendment that's before us by the Minister of Health really talks about doing away with the Crossroads treatment centre and, in fact, proceeding with a new program in its place.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is, in fact, an amendment that is out of order.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I would contend that this amendment is consistent with previous motions of this kind that have been raised in this House with regard to further motions, and I would suggest that it is consistent with past practice and I would ask that the Speaker make a ruling on it.

Speaker's statement

Speaker: I'm going to take the point of order under consideration. While doing that, I will let the House continue to debate the amendment proposed by the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take time to talk a little bit about this motion because the nature of the motion itself does make reference to a new treatment direction that we are taking a look at. Basically what we're saying is that we would have, as of April 1, a new addictions treatment service and this will be based upon the concept of an enhanced continuum of addiction service. A continuum would include detoxification, assessment, pretreatment, treatment, relapse prevention, after-care and followup. Through the assessment, clients can enter the continuum at any point. What we're really saying by that is that if an individual wants to come back for relapse prevention or whatever, we'll make that available. Presently, we're providing detox assessment services, in-patient treatment, out-patient treatment counselling and after-care.

So, what will there be in this new program? Well, for one thing, our concept is going to be that we're looking at addictions recovery, viewed as a 24-month process. While battling with addictions is a life-long process, we're looking at the actual continuum of trying to deliver services to an individual over a 24-month period.

We'll be looking at the detoxification, as I made reference to earlier, and continual intake of pretreatment as a component. We'll be looking at a 12-day treatment program following that. If the client is assessed as needing more intensive treatment, then this program has the capability of providing accommodations on site - as I made reference to earlier - for 42 days on site for people who need it.

So, the idea of individuals who might want to come in, stay in for the treatment and participate in the treatment program, but have concerns about going home, for a whole variety of reasons, that service will be there.

Every three months, the treatment program will change its focus and offer a one-week relapse prevention program to clients who have already received treatment. We will also be looking at a 14-day program offered to clients assessed as requiring additional support beyond the treatment, and the program focus will be on community integration.

Community addictions workers will be invited to learn how to deliver this treatment program in their home communities. We've already had interest from a number of communities in this regard. We have one community here in Whitehorse that has accessed that and another community lined up for accessing that program in a short period of time.

We're looking at after-care supports being strengthened and we're also trying to provide links with agencies for basic needs, health and social problems and employment.

One of the difficulties right now is that individuals often go through the program and then - boom - they're right back into their home communities. I can say from experience, having lived in rural communities, I've seen this cycle go round and round. I've seen people come in for treatment only to return to the same environment they were in without a great deal of support or followup. In my experience, particularly from the point of view of education, I've seen families taken away, broken up, disrupted, children put in foster care, go back to their natural parents and get put back into foster care, on an ongoing, revolving door cycle. I think that's something that needs to be changed. We need to support people when they return to their home communities.

I'm surprised that a member who is from a rural community has such a paucity of information in that regard and such a lack of understanding.

In the continuum of care that we are developing, housing and treatment are viewed as separate issues. However, as I said before, a person could have residential support if they need it.

It's fundamentally based upon the idea that clients deserve the kind of services that are most appropriate. It's based on the concept that treatment needs to be the least intrusive as possible for the clients' needs, that clients need to take responsibility for their recovery from addictions, that the treatment needs to be sensitive to the diverse and changing needs of Yukoners. An addictions treatment program needs to be as holistic as possible, and the basic concept - the recovery from addiction - is a long-term process requiring different supports at different times through the recovery process. We believe, fundamentally, that treatment services have to be flexible.

Because of this, we believe that this plan is a better way of providing alcohol treatment in the territory, and we are going to act by implementing this plan to foster healthier communities. I look forward to reporting back to members in this House about the success of this program in the future.

Thank you.

Mr. Jenkins: On the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to raise a few points. The minister, in his preamble, mentioned a number of difficulties. I relate them back to the minister: high staff turnover, resistance to change, cross-cultural training. These were identified clearly as some of the areas that Crossroads needed to address.

Those three factors would hold true for any one of a number of NGOs or agencies delivering a service. And they will continue to be a problem whether the programs are run by Crossroads or by this government.

There are a couple of the other areas that the minister and I disagree on. I have to admire the minister. He's put a very, very capable twist on the words that I did say. I wanted to make it abundantly clear that I am not opposed to the wilderness treatment programs such as are in place in Mayo and Old Crow. I believe that there is a lot of benefit derived from these programs being in place. What I am asking the minister to undertake is a review of the effectiveness of these programs, and he's indicated that they have conducted some sort of an analysis.

The minister went back and identified problems with the programs in 1981, 1984, 1988, 1991 and again in 1993. Well, I'd suggest to the minister that if we take these new programs that the minister is envisioning and analyze them with the same criteria as the analysis that was conducted before, we'll still continue to have problems with these new programs.

What I would advocate, Mr. Speaker, are services to augment the Crossroads program, not to replace the Crossroads programs. And it's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, in tonight's Yukon News in the letters to the editor, it states that: "An interesting letter just crossed our desk. It's dated March 15, 1993, and signed by Tony Pennikett, who was then leader of the official opposition. It's addressed to Bev Buckway, who was then the chair of the board of directors of Crossroads.

"'In respect to your request for our support, I would like you to regard this letter as an endorsement for Crossroads for the entire New Democratic caucus,' he writes. 'We feel that your treatment centre is an important component in helping deal with alcohol and drug problems in the Yukon.'

"At the time the Yukon Party government was weighing whether to continue funding Crossroads, the territory's only residential drug and alcohol treatment centre.

"What has happened since then to change the NDP's mind? Could it simply be it now needs the building to honour a campaign promise?

"We hope not."

Now, that's a letter in tonight's editorial, Mr. Speaker. We're calling for augmenting the service that is -

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please. Order.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we're looking at is a situation where Crossroads has a few internal problems.

Now, it would be prudent of the minister to investigate those problems, look at what can be done to fix those problems, and augment the programs that are delivered by Crossroads with some of these new, improved techniques that are coming our way. They

don't necessarily have to be delivered by government, Mr. Speaker - these new programs. They can be delivered by NGOs. They can be delivered by a very, very broad range of people qualified in these areas.

The other area that the minister had the ability to twist, and twist very well, was my statement that the minister should go and seek treatment himself. And that was concerning the minister's statement that he was going to deliver these new programs and he was going to have a resulting saving from what it costs to fund Crossroads of some $100,000 a year.

I say to this House, "That's bunk." There's no way that the minister is going to have a resulting saving amounting to that much and still deliver these programs effectively. There was a high commitment by the people involved in Crossroads - a volunteer board, an NGO. The population at large knows full well that the private sector can deliver programs a lot more effectively and efficiently - let's say more efficiently and cost-effectively than government agencies. Some of the government agencies that have been privatized are coming close, but in this area it is going to be very, very difficult for the government to save money delivering these same programs, and variations of these programs, themselves.

The bottom line is,

Mr. Speaker, that this government is charged with a responsibility to deliver programs - and I'd suggest through NGOs - in the most beneficial manner to the people needing treatment and in the most cost-effective manner. I can't support the motion, as amended. This Motion No. 93, the amendment to my motion, changes the whole context of my original motion.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Edelman: It's the wasted Wednesday, silly game again. What the party across the way is doing, once again, is they're introducing an amendment to a motion that completely changes the intent of the motion. Apparently, this government doesn't have the intellectual courage to deal with the fact that some people disagree with them.

Why do they always put these motions on every Wednesday and completely change them? I challenge the NDP to use their intellect and engage in some good debate. We're actually quite bright over here. There is a possibility that we might come over to the government's point of view. If it's a good enough argument, hopefully, we'll have the same motivation for being in this House. Hopefully, if it's a good enough argument, we'll look at why we're in this House. We're in this House for good government for Yukoners.

If you have a good argument that contradicts what these motions say, we're quite willing to listen to them. Obviously, we are interested, because we're here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the motion prior to amendment - and it hasn't been amended yet - that we're discussing today speaks to many issues around alcohol and drug treatment programming here in the Yukon. Specifically, we're talking about continued funding of a Crossroads Society program as delivered out of the Crossroads building here in Whitehorse. Regardless of all the meetings that supposedly took place between the staff at ADS and some representatives of Crossroads in 1996, through to November 1997, the volunteer board members of Crossroads were still shocked to hear about the closure of Crossroads when it was announced by the Minister of Health and Social Services in December 1997, just days after this Legislature rose.

I assume that this is just another example of what being "open and accountable" means to the NDP - making a major announcement days after the Legislature breaks, hoping it will go unnoticed. Well, Yukoners have noticed, Mr. Speaker. Former clients noticed and certainly the staff at Crossroads noticed. After all, 14 of those people have lost their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has continually alluded to the big problems at Crossroads. Anyone who works in the alcohol and drug treatment field will tell you that there are always problems in this area. Crossroads, for example, has had a series of short-term directors. That's been a normal thing over the last 26 years. Indeed, problems in alcohol and drug treatment programs are normal. It is a burn-out field.

Now in the McLaughlin report, there was a call for more followup, cultural content and staff training - that would be First Nations cultural content and staff training. Mr. Speaker, if that were the case - and this report is quite old - why did not the government work with the board of Crossroads to amend those issues many years ago? Why did this come to a head now?

The chronic problems at Crossroads will still be there, too, when this government takes over that program in that building. According to ADS, it was necessary to update programming in the alcohol and drug treatment field for Whitehorse, and that's fine, because anyone will tell you that the number of hard-core drug users has gone way up over the last few years and it makes sense to change the focus of programming away from merely alcohol treatment programming to the more intensive work necessary to work with hard-core drug users - and that is fine. But it is important for the minister to note that his program isn't any more efficacious than any other.

I know it's been a long time since the minister has been at university - and those are campuses for critical thought - but for every study that the minister has quoted today supporting his program, there are just as many to support residential programs. And here is a dose of reality, too: drug and alcohol treatment programs are not always effective. As a matter of fact, whether they're residential treatment programs, wilderness camps or day programs, treatment programs don't work a lot of the time in this field and that's just the nature of the field. It is a burn-out field for a lot of good reasons.

But regardless of that, did this government go to the Crossroads board and say, "Hey, we have a problem and we're your primary source of referral, so we need this issue addressed. And because we're the government, we have done a lot of research and here are a couple of options, maybe three options, that we want you to look at in order to update your program. And, hey, if you're not interested, we might look at some other NGOs to provide this service."

Did that happen? No. There was a letter that was sent in September saying that if you don't come up with a whole lot of answers quickly, in four weeks we're going to shut you down.

But then they did shut them down. So that didn't make sense. Were they willing to work with the board or not? Why did they suddenly decide in December, after the House rose, that they were going to shut it down?

Non-profit NGOs deliver health care services a lot cheaper than the government can. Non-profit NGOs are eligible for funding from other sources. They can get donations or grants from other levels of government or charities, and non-profit NGOs have access to a lot of community expertise and volunteer labour because they're societies - local societies, non-profit societies. Non-profit NGOs are the venue that government departments across this nation are looking at for health and social services treatment program delivery, because it's cheaper, and because it has greater accountability and connection with the local community.

Here in the Yukon, however, we just took a 26-year step backward in policy. Now we have decided that we are going back to direct service delivery because we don't want to take the time to work with the local service delivery agent - the non-profit NGO - to update their program. We've obviously got money to burn.

There has been a giant shift backward in policy here. I guess we don't value our local volunteer boards or our various NGOs, and we must not value them, because we aren't taking the time to work with Crossroads.

Now, who's next? Are we going back to direct service delivery for literacy? For services at the various women's shelters? For services for seniors? Are we going to turf the Family Services Association and go back to direct service delivery in that area as well? Or is this a very selective type of policy - it only applies to Crossroads?

Yes, there have been problems at Crossroads, and I dare the minister to find an NGO on the planet that hasn't had some sort of problem or another. One of the biggest issues with Crossroads has always been the building. This is a facility built as a teacherage, originally, and all the floors are split-level. There are a number of blind spots, if you will, that exist throughout Crossroads. It is in these selected areas that any number of things can happen, and it's in these areas that you have to worry about intermixing of the sexes; you have to worry about people using and selling drugs and alcohol.

The department has budgeted a mere $40,000 to renovate Crossroads this year. Is that going to be enough to address this issue, plus put in a transient shelter, a new detox, a new medical detox facility and replace a pretty poor roof. I don't think so.

All or most of the furniture in Crossroads, including the beds, belongs to the Crossroads Society. Is the replacement of those furnishings going to come out of the $40,000 as well? Is the department going to buy the society out of the one year left on the lease with this $40,000 as well? I don't think so. There has obviously been a lack of planning, and that's obvious to everyone but the minister.

The minister has continually referred to bringing in a medical detox, but there are only going to be two RNs hired to run this program. How will meds be monitored when these nurses are not available? Are they expected to have no days off and work opposite 12-hour shifts? Is this a safer and better delivered service than the one we have now? Has any medical practitioner taken a look at this program and checked to see whether this detox model will work in Whitehorse, whether it's cheaper, whether it's better? I think not.

Now, on this past Monday, when I questioned the Minister of Health and Social Services about all of these meetings he had had with the board of Crossroads about the closure of Crossroads, he was unable to come up with any minutes of these meetings. Now, Mr. Speaker, the volunteer board members of the Crossroads Society were surprised about the announcement of the closure of Crossroads when it was announced in December of 1997, just days after the House rose, and on this past Monday, when I questioned the minister, he wasn't too sure about what would happen to the 14 laid-off Crossroads workers. Maybe they might get hired by ADS and maybe not.

Mr. Speaker, when questioned about how the department was going to get out of the remaining year left on the lease with the Crossroads Society, the minister had no idea what would happen, other than that the department was going to start programming out of the building starting April 1. That is not a lot of detail. Clearly, this decision was made in haste.

Mr. Speaker, there have been continuous problems with ADS having to pay for basically empty beds at Crossroads. Will the department taking over this service in any way alleviate that problem?

ADS has continually set up Crossroads society for failure. They have allotted a certain number of beds from referrals from ADS and at the very, very last minute, when it was too late to fill those beds with any other referrals, they've decided they don't need them anymore. Then, what they're saying is that they've allotted money in their budget for these unmet needs and that the Crossroads Society, somehow or another, is wasting government tax dollars. What this government has done is treat this society unfairly.

Mr. Speaker, there are still two great unmet needs for drug and alcohol drug treatment. There is virtually nothing for youth and very little programming just for women. There will always be a need for residential treatment, as well. Regardless of the latest and greatest off the Internet, you cannot launch someone out of a day program and then expect them not to hang out in the only places they have friends at night and on the weekends. At night, you'll go back to where you feel comfortable - those slippery places, where you're guaranteed to start taking drugs again or drink.

You know, I can't help but think that this government is endorsing two types of drug treatment services here in the Yukon: day treatment, if you're unlucky enough not to have the funds or the medical plan to get you shipped outside, or the middle class treatment venue, where you hop on a plane and your government plan pays for you to go to residential treatment outside. The NDP has created a two-tiered treatment plan for Yukoners. If you have money or a medical plan, you'll be able to afford to go outside for residential treatment. The new program cuts back on the number of beds available for residential treatment. In the past, there were times when all the beds at Crossroads were full, and it is clear that, with fewer beds, there again will be times when all available beds will be full and even if you request residential treatment, it's just not there for you.

So, what the government is saying is that if you have the money, you can go outside for treatment. If you don't have the money and the beds are full - too bad. You're out of luck, because you're poor. It is extremely disappointing to see the NDP, a party that prides itself on being the friend of the little guy, show so little respect for those most in need of service.

What about self-referrals? I challenge anyone in this room to phone up ADS and speak to a counsellor. It doesn't happen. It doesn't matter if you're a nice, middle-class person with voice mail, a poor kid on a pay phone at the high school or a person without a permanent address, let alone a phone, you're all going to be treated the same. If you get through to the receptionist - and nine times out of 10 times you only get voice mail - then you are told that someone will phone you back eventually. It's a little hard to phone back to someone who doesn't have a phone or to a youth who doesn't want their parents to find out that they have a problem. Or if you're really lucky, it will only take you six bounces before you actually get booked in for an assessment. Of course, people with alcohol and drug addictions are really good at keeping appointments. This contrasts with Crossroads, which is a place where someone here cares. A place well-known in the community where a person can get a chance to talk to a person about the problems they are having and get a chance to help themselves right away.

There have been a lot of concerns voiced by the First Nations over the years about the lack of cultural content in the Crossroads program, and this is a valid concern. So, how does the department expect to address this issue? The minister did not consult with the Kwanlin Dun, the largest First Nation in the Yukon. He's trying to consult now, but, really, that is backwards consultation again: make the decision and then do the consultations later to back you up. Has the department even consulted with the Kwanlin Dun about this program and the possible treatment options?

Sure, there have been problems at Crossroads, but this new program delivery system and this new program have not been well-thought-out.

The general consultations about alcohol and drugs in the territory finished in November 1997. Only one month later, the minister made the decision to shut down the Crossroads program without exploring other options with the volunteer board or any other NGO. Only one month later, in December 1997, the minister decided to take a 26-year giant step backwards in policy and have the department go back to direct service delivery for alcohol and drug treatment programs in Whitehorse, without giving anyone else the chance to deliver that service to Yukoners.

And now it's March 1998, and the minister still has given us no clear indication of how he's going to deliver rural alcohol and drug treatment programs in the communities. It will only take him one month to shut down an NGO with a history of 26 years of service in this community. What is the delay with the rural service plan?

The minister originally said that he was going to bring staff in from the communities to be trained to deliver alcohol and drug treatment programs. Who's he going to bring in? What about program funding? Will there be standards for drug and alcohol treatment programs? Will the government pay for a program in a rural community at the same per diem rate as those available in Whitehorse? Will they have standards that rural service providers will have to meet in order to give continuity to the drug and alcohol treatment continuum across the Yukon? Will program dollars for rural programming be used to top up the NNADAP worker salaries or will money only be made available on a per diem basis? Will there be any O&M dollars available to operate and maintain remote rural treatment facilities? What about ways to measure the effectiveness of these programs? Will we be using recidivism stats? Will these stats all be collected in the same way? What about the followup services for rural communities?

The problem now is that a person - the minister spoke of this earlier - comes out of a wilderness camp or back from a stay at a residential program outside the Yukon, then bang, they're back in the community, right back where they started from, with no network of support for their new, sober lifestyle.

Now, our caucus supports more alcohol and drug treatment options for rural communities. However, these options should not come at the expense of Whitehorse's treatment needs - Whitehorse, where 70 percent of the population and 70 percent of the problem lives.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this is not an attempt by this government to pit rural interests against urban. That is what happened the last time the NDP was in power. We are a small territory with limited resources and only a few people. This government should not be attempting to divide Yukoners' interests for political gain.

The thing that sticks in my throat the most about the whole Crossroads fiasco is that drug and alcohol treatment in Whitehorse is being looked at in isolation. This government has access to action plans, implementation plans, drug and alcohol strategies, studies, committee reports and numerous reports, all of which say the same thing: we have to coordinate services around alcohol abuse.

Should mothers who have previously had FAS babies be given top priority for residential beds at Crossroads? Will any of the liquor profits go toward running the operations of drug and alcohol treatment in the Yukon? There is no plan.

Mr. Speaker, the volunteer board members of the Crossroads Society have been treated quite poorly during this process. I am ashamed of the way these board members - people who have given up their time; time that they could have been spending with their families - I'm ashamed of the way this government has treated the people on the board of Crossroads. They have been treated with the utmost disrespect by this government, and board members, you will remember, were surprised about the closure of the Crossroads treatment program under the Crossroads society.

The people who sit on that board are there because they care about the people who are treated at Crossroads. These volunteer board members care, and because they do, they have committed untold hours and days away from their families to provide alcohol and drug residential treatment to the people of the Yukon. And, Mr. Speaker, this government didn't even have the decency to look at other options to closure with this board.

Speaker: The member has two minutes.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the minister's lack of respect for these volunteer board members is just shameful.

The minister is now in the process of too-little, too-late kind of consultations. I just wish that this government had at least explored other options with the Crossroads Society.

Why did this government decide to go back to direct service delivery when no one else in Canada is doing that? This is not well thought out.

The minister is no doubt going to use the information he gets from his more specific consultation to justify changing the Crossroads program. This has turned into a political football.

I know that the people doing the consultation and the people who came up with the new program are not to blame for this fiasco. Mr. Speaker, drug and alcohol treatment is a life and death issue and, on top of that, 14 people have lost their jobs during this process. I know exactly who is to blame for this.

Mr. Hardy: I'm rising in support of this amendment. I'm a little surprised at the extremely negative rant from the Member for Riverdale South. She says, "The program was refined. There is nothing wrong. The minister shouldn't do anything." Well, I think that comes from selective hearing. Definitely she doesn't listen very closely to the cries of people out there. I think the only true statement she has made and that she makes over and over and over again, and she applied it to herself is the statement, "I think not," because she proves it every time she stands up and speaks. The attack on the minister and what the department is trying to do has no justification and no sound analysis and that seems to be what we get from that member and from that caucus.

It'