Whitehorse, Yukon
Wednesday, April 22, 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?
TRIBUTES
In recognition of Earth Day
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, April 22 is widely observed as Earth Day, an opportunity to recognize our tie to the planet and the importance of looking after our planet. For almost 30 years, many people in grass roots organizations have used the date to reaffirm their commitment to, "A healthy, vibrant planet, a loving, caring world and the noblest endeavour of human spirit," in the words of Earthday Website.
Certainly, the local youth groups and students aware of their world help remind us what we can do to help the planet with their efforts to offer free juice and muffins to people who parked their cars and walked and cycled to work this morning.
With young people caring and reminding us to care for the earth, there is hope for the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Introduction of visitors?
Are there any returns or documents for tabling?
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
Agricultural policy review
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise the House of our government's plan for a public review of the Yukon agriculture and grazing policies, consistent with our commitment to involve people in issues that affect them.
Agriculture for the '90s: AYukon Policy, was adopted to guide the development of industry in November 1991. It was split into two sections to deal with agricultural support programs delivered by the agricultural branch of the Department of Renewable Resources and to set out guidelines for the disposition of agricultural land.
The requirement for a review was built into the policy.
In the last year, the department completed an internal assessment of agricultural extension and development programs.
The public stage for the review will focus primarily on agricultural land aspects of the agriculture and grazing policies.
Mr. Speaker, in developing an approach to this review, our government has been keenly aware of both agricultural industry's interest in seeing improvements that meet its needs, as well as widespread public perceptions that agricultural land dispositions have not necessarily led to increased agricultural production.
We will involve both industry and a variety of other interests in an advisory committee to oversee the review from the outset. An interdepartmental work group will work with the committee to develop terms of reference for a contract to establish detailed performance indicators and evaluation criteria prior to the broad public consultation on policies.
The review is expected to look at whether there is enough privately held land to support a viable industry and whether that land is well utilized. It will also consider the environmental impacts of agricultural and grazing land dispositions and the effectiveness of current land use regulations and the advisability of additional measures to keep arable land in production.
Other anticipated subjects for debate are on the length of grazing lease terms, the appropriateness of fencing requirements, whether or not current provisions for offsetting agricultural land prices through development costs are appropriate and what types of operational needs should justify the issuance of grazing leases.
Work on setting terms of reference for the review will begin immediately upon the establishment of an advisory committee. Public consultation will follow the development of a review criteria and preparation for the consultation package.
I look forward to the members' support for this review and the active involvement of interested Yukon people.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ostashek: I can say, from the outset, that we're pleased to see the minister going out for policy review but, again, we take exception to him making a ministerial statement on it, when it's really stretching the bounds of what is allowed in this Legislature. Ministerial statements are supposed to be a statement of a change of government policy. This government has been notorious for making statement after statement on consultation and very little about actual policy. So, I just want to put that on the record again, Mr. Speaker - that we feel they're abusing the rules of the Legislature for ministerial statements.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Ostashek: We hear the bright light from Kluane chirping in the background. Once again, he doesn't make much sense, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, policy review is a good thing, and I hope that the minister listens very carefully to the people when he does the review. I don't have much comment on this because there's not much in here, except to say that they are going out to consult with the people, so I don't know what I can add to it at this point.
Ms. Duncan: I rise to respond to this ministerial statement on behalf of the Yukon Liberal Party caucus. The minister has advised the House, not so much of a commitment that's consistent with government policy, but commitment for a requirement for a review that was built into the policy originally, and indicated to the House how that public review will take place. However, the minister hasn't indicated when. There's no real calendar or estimated time frame contained in this ministerial statement, and that's one question I would like the minister to respond to.
The balance of the questions I will leave until the Renewable Resources debate, as we had a bit of a discussion on this subject during the briefing, and they're more technical. So I'll leave the other questions to the Renewable Resources budget debate, but could the minister just indicate what the time frame is for this review.
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: There doesn't appear to be much opposition to the statement. It is a requirement, as the member said, under the policy to do a review, and we're doing it in two stages. With this, to add to the review of the agricultural policy, we're including the grazing policies along with it.
We feel that it is so closely related, it's a good opportunity to do a review at the same time as the agricultural review. We are going to be working on the terms of reference with the working group - the advisory committee. The advisory committee would involve a number of people, such as the Yukon Agricultural Association - I'm sure that they'll be doing some of the work in the review - the Fish and Game Association, Ducks Unlimited, the Conservation Society and First Nations - as is our commitment to communities and First Nations, dealing government-to-government. We'll continue to work with First Nations on a consultative basis on the policy.
When we put the terms of references and guidelines in place to do this, we will be much more clear as to when the completion of this review will be done. What we would like is for it to fit in nicely with the other consultation that the government is doing right now. As you know, we have a very heavy consultation package to communities with the different departments in government and we wanted this review to fit in nicely with that.
I guess that once the advisory committee is formed and is up and working, we will have a more clear understanding as to the final date of this review.
Community-based restorative justice strategy
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform members of some new initiatives that reflect our government's policy of working with Yukon people to develop community justice models that are truly responsive to the needs and values of Yukon society.
Throughout the Yukon, many communities and First Nations are actively seeking alternatives to the current criminal justice system, to provide for greater public accountability, speedier responses, more support for victims and a wider range of options for dealing with offenders.
Yukon people have expressed a desire for justice alternatives that bring real healing for victims and positive changes in offenders' lives.
As part of our government's overall approach to community-based restorative justice, the Department of Justice has been pursuing ways to allow more federal funds to flow to the Yukon under the federal aboriginal justice strategy, which is in place until April 2001.
Under this strategy, the federal government contributes 50-percent funding toward projects that help build the foundation for justice programs administered by aboriginal people. The Yukon government matches these funds.
I am pleased to inform the House that the department has signed a bilateral protocol with Justice Canada that will help tripartite negotiations of relevant justice proposals. Signing this protocol allows us to proceed with funding a number of community-based restorative justice projects.
More than $600,000 will be available for such projects in the Yukon during the current fiscal year. Our government is prepared to allocate more than $300,000 in cash or in-kind contributions.
Community organizations and First Nations that will receive funding for restorative justice projects include: Southern Lakes Justice Committee, based in Carcross; Carmacks Justice Committee; Dawson City Community Justice; Haines Junction Community Justice; Kwanlin Dun First Nation Justice; Liard First Nation; Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, and Teslin Tlingit Council.
My officials are developing contribution agreements for these projects, which will involve both aboriginal and non-aboriginal offenders.
Mr. Speaker, with these actions our government is building upon our commitment to work together with Yukon people to seek alternatives to the current criminal justice system.
The department is also making plans to begin public consultations later this year to seek the views of Yukon people on ways to reduce crime and to restore the balance of community justice when crimes do occur in a manner that meets the needs of the individuals, families and communities involved.
This dialogue will help all of us identify and support crime prevention and victim services initiatives that will build the foundations for safe and healthy Yukon communities.
Thank you.
Mr. Phillips: We in the official opposition rise in support of the initiative that has been announced by the minister here today.
Mr. Speaker, the public has grown increasingly frustrated and fed up with the inability of our justice system to serve the public.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the ministerial statement that we have before us today that this is a project that's being undertaken in conjunction with the federal government, and, in fact, the minister mentioned tripartite negotiations, and I suspect by that that she means First Nations as well. I was wondering why the federal government got so little mention in the press release. It almost looks like a Government of the Yukon program, other than the short mention that 50 percent of the funding was coming from the federal government. I wouldn't think that the federal government would be very happy about that.
If they are tripartite negotiations, and we are talking government to government to government, maybe the minister can tell me how much of a contribution the First Nations will be putting forward in this initiative as a contributing government to a project such as this.
Mr. Speaker, anything such as this that would provide for better accountability, speedier responses and more support for the victims, I'm sure will be welcomed by people in the justice system and by the general public. I think what's most important is that it follows the recommendations out of the Talking About Crime report done under Yukon Party government, where it urges any initiative to be done at the community level. So, I appreciate the fact that the government is following that recommendation in that report.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of questions that I have are about the basic criteria for the Justice projects. Are there any specific criteria set out for the projects? Does the minister have any idea when these agreements will be negotiated and when the projects will actually start? Is there any kind of monitoring or followup that will be done on the projects to determine the effectiveness of the project?
Mr. Speaker, as well, I notice that of projects in some of the other communities, there was one in the Kwanlin Dun First Nation but there was no specific project initiative for the City of Whitehorse. I wonder if that's because they don't qualify for one reason or another. Maybe the minister could let us know in her response.
Mr. Speaker, we're pleased to see that this initiative is getting underway and we're going to look forward to the projects providing more accountability in our Justice system in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cable: I think everyone feels that the community fails when the system does not deal with victims' concerns. Any moves in that direction are to be supported and are supported by the Liberal caucus.
But the community also fails when it does not work out ways of dealing with offenders, particularly repeat offenders. Everyone who goes into the courts or in the sentencing circles and is recycled is a failure to the system and the system is a failure on the part of the offender. Repeat offenders are a social cost, an economic cost, and for the victims they are a psychological cost.
The Yukon public has heard speech after speech about new programs. What the public has not heard is how the government is going to gauge the effectiveness of crime programs. How are we going to figure out the effectiveness of the juvenile offender sentencing options in relation to repeat offences? How are we trying to figure out what works with adult repeat offenders?
Now, there's no shortage of ideas on how to deal with crime and with criminals. There is a shortage of ideas on determining the effectiveness of the various options for dealing with offenders, whether it's the present options or the wider range of options talked about in the statement. It would be useful for the minister to tell us what her department is doing to determine the effectiveness of her various initiatives.
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I'd like to thank the opposition members for their support.
Mr. Speaker, people throughout the Yukon have told me they want to be involved in reforming the justice system. We all see the need for improvements. We're building and strengthening partnerships, as some of the programs I referred to earlier show, and we need to do more.
We're working on improving public safety, preventing crime and resolving conflict. This restorative justice initiative is broader than just the aboriginal justice strategy, which is funding specific projects, as identified in the ministerial statement. A restorative justice system should give communities a primary role in developing policies and programs.
We gauge the effectiveness of existing programs and new programs by maintaining statistics on recidivism and by supporting other options to see how they work. Part of measuring the effectiveness of programs is having the continued discussion with the public on how to make improvements.
We can also reduce the level of crime through early intervention initiatives, and our government has taken a number of measures in that area, as well, that the Minister of Health has advised us of. But we need to find ways for offenders to repair the harm that they've done to their victims, to the families, the communities and themselves, by their criminal behaviour, and that builds healthier and stronger relationships and leads to a reduction in crime.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Electrical rate increase
Mr. Ostashek: My question's to the Government Leader on the consequences of NDP political interference into the operation of YEC. The Government Leader was part of a previous NDP government that, in 1987, accepted the transfer of assets from the Northern Canada Power Commission to the Yukon Energy Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, during those heady days, the YEC was treated as a cash cow by the NDP government of the day, with some $16 million alone being squandered on the Watson Lake sawmill, millions of dollars being spent on other non-energy-related projects, such as renovations to Yukon College.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the YEC cash cow has gone dry. It has been milked dry by this NDP government, and now Yukon ratepayers and businesses and municipalities are going to have to face the consequences of the NDP financial mismanagement through ever-increasing power rates at a time when they can least afford to pay.
It is time for the people to stand up and say, enough is enough, and that this political interference in the YEC has to stop. Does the Government Leader not agree that a 16-percent increase at this time for municipalities and businesses is totally outrageous?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, the member will not find it surprising if I disagree with his basic proposition, virtually all his preamble, and his recounting of history. I know the member wasn't there at the time, and I know that he's reading from the tablets that have been bequeathed to him by his colleagues.
I forgive him for his ignorance on the subject. Nevertheless, I don't agree with virtually anything he said with respect to the actions of the NDP government over a decade ago.
With respect to the point of the question, which I think is a reference to the application before the Yukon Utilities Board by the Yukon Energy Corporation, proposing, ultimately, a 16-percent increase, the member has obviously made it clear that he thinks that's too high.
Now, I'm a little bit surprised. The member will forgive me if I'm a little surprised, because the member had said, only a month ago, that he expected that the utility would likely be filing for an increase of 30 percent - and perhaps up to a 45-percent increase - because the member remembered what happened when he was leading the government and the Energy Corporation asked for a 58-percent increase.
So, I'm certain that the member was expressing some concerns or some flashbacks to his time in government.
Now, the Energy Corporation is putting a proposal before the Yukon Utilities Board. They are trying to make a case to the Yukon Utilities Board that this is desirable. We've obviously also put forward, for public review, some other alternatives for a lower increase. Consequently, we will be monitoring very carefully what the public has to say, as well as what the Yukon Utilities Board decides.
Mr. Ostashek: Well, let me make it quite clear to the Government Leader that I'm not ignorant of the facts of the previous administration, nor are the Yukoners who had to suffer through it.
It is 16 percent in the first year and going up for the next five years - that's what's going in front of the Utilities Board today, and the Energy Corporation Board is trying to put the best possible spin on it they can.
Quite clearly, the board has its back to the wall and it's been put there by this government and previous NDP governments through continual political interference and squandering of Yukon Energy Corporation money.
The Yukon Energy Corporation submission to the Utilities Board says that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. That's what Yukoners are going to read into it. The Yukon Energy Corporation is requesting power increases for the next five years. Businesses and municipalities are going to have to pass these increases on to individual Yukoners.
We've already seen what one municipality thinks of it, Mr. Speaker. And there is going to be more, I'm sure. They have no choice, as this is a time of a depressed economy.
What is this government going to do to build some optimism with Yukoners that, at some time in the future, they're going to be able to enjoy lower power rates?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, based on the member's stubborn attachment to his recounting of history, I can only say now that not only is he ignorant but he is blissfully ignorant of the past.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Anvil Range mine, when it closed and when it closed in 1993, caused the utility to request an increase, and the member, of course, has his flashbacks, I'm sure, late at night, about why he was expected to somehow respond to or answer for a 58-percent increase being requested by the utility of the day.
Now, after the review that we have done in the last year, we have considered and put forward an option which suggests that we don't need to be thinking about a 58-percent increase, even though there are some hefty mortgages associated with the utility. We can be thinking about something that is very modest by comparison and flatlined in the future.
So, the government feels comfortable that there is that option on the table right now, which achieves better affordability and better stability than ever before, and certainly much moreso than the Yukon Party government offered while they were in power.
Mr. Ostashek: Well, it's quite clear to see that the Government Leader is very ignorant of the rate increases that were brought in last time because there was no such thing as 58 percent, and he full well knows it, but he likes to twist things around to suit himself in this Legislature and hope that Yukoners will buy into it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate is running over 15 percent and would be higher except many Yukoners have given up on this government and left the territory. These unacceptably higher power rates are going to force more business closures, they're going to further depress the economy, and will act as a major deterrent to anyone looking to invest in the Yukon.
Mr. Speaker, this Government Leader and his party promised stable, affordable power rates to Yukoners. Yet, by the submission that was made to the YUB this morning, it's quite clear that he can't deliver on that in his mandate.
When is this Government Leader going to keep his promise to Yukoners to bring in affordable power rates?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that when the member was in office, the utility did request 58 percent. They didn't get 58 percent, but they did request it.
The utility is now asking for eight to 16 percent, spaced out over time. That doesn't say they're going to get it, but that's what they're asking for.
The point of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the utility is now asking for substantially less, understanding better the direction of the government. Whether they get it or not will be up to the Utilities Board.
But I want to point out to the member, who is asking the government - presumably me or the minister responsible for the Energy Corporation - to interfere and not even let the public utility even make a statement publicly that's not perfectly consistent with the government proposals, to make the obvious point, that in fact this utility is an independent body in many respects, and this utility does have a mind of its own and it is making a case for slightly higher rates.
The government has a proposal, Mr. Speaker, on the table, which is substantially less. But even though the utility is suggesting that the rate should be higher than even the government thinks it should be, and both these competing propositions are out for public discussion, and ultimately the Yukon Utilities Board is going to at least decide at one stage on the subject of rates, I would point out that in both cases, they are substantially less than what the Yukon Party government was fear-mongering about only a month ago when they were talking about 30 percent, and I think they got it upwards of 45 percent.
So, clearly, the member doesn't have credibility on this subject. A lot of work is going in -
Speaker: Would the member please conclude?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The government is trying to promote more affordable rates, and certainly stability is very much part of our thinking.
Question re: Electrical rate increase
Mr. Ostashek: Finally, Mr. Speaker, finally we've got an admission from this Government Leader when he talks about the independence. He says the board is independent "in many respects." I suggest to him: not in all respects. That's part of the problem that they're facing.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Government Leader, once again, on the NDP's interference and decimation of the Energy Corporation.
Management of our utility by this government and previous NDP governments has been atrocious. Ironically, Yukon is one of the few jurisdictions in Canada that has the potential to become energy self-sufficient and actually have cheaper power. But the vision of a bright and reasonably priced energy future, however, has been basically stomped into the ground by this Government Leader and his administration.
I would like the Government Leader to explain to Yukoners and to the YEC Board how the Yukon is ever going to develop a grid system and other infrastructure to reduce our energy system's current dependence on expensive diesel fuel if NDP governments don't allow YEC to retain enough money to build this infrastructure.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: That's a good question, Mr. Speaker. I'll just quickly point out a couple of things first. The member wants us to admit to some sort of atrocious record, when this government is proposing an option which calls for a nine-percent increase and the utility is asking for 16 percent. The member presided over a government where the utility was asking for a 58-percent increase. I will accept our record over his record any day. I'm certain that most people in the public would feel the same way.
Now, I realize the member was reading out all that highfalutin hyperbole there - that rhetoric that he's been given by Mr. Steele to read into the record. But I would point out to the member that what he is suggesting is that the utility be given sufficient money from the ratepayers today, through the rates, in order to build projects, such as the member's coal project that he couldn't stop talking about for four years.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the proposals that we have on the record now clearly put the priority of keeping the money in people's pockets, rather than extracting it, so that the utility can go out and build new projects which, ultimately, will come with new mortgages as well and, ultimately, even greater debt and, ultimately, even greater risk to people in this territory. We can't buy into that vision, Mr. Speaker. The people don't like that vision. That's why the member's in the opposition.
Mr. Ostashek: Yukoners know they can't buy into that vision because they don't have any vision of the future of the Yukon. They've creamed all the money off YEC over the years that they were in power, and that's why Yukoners are faced with the massive increases that they are today.
Mr. Speaker, the only infrastructure that this government developed that I can recall was an election gimmick in the 1980s to provide power free of charge to Henderson's Corner, outside of Dawson City - a power line that was promoted to Yukoners as a pre-build for the Mayo extension, which Yukoners are still waiting for, Mr. Speaker, and which they were told after the election, even if it happens, they couldn't use the power line that went to Henderson's Corner. That's all that we've had from this government.
In the budget address, the government stated that the government's now examining the feasibility of an inter-tie with B.C. Hydro, an idea that they thought was ridiculous when they were in opposition. But no, theirs is a new and improved version, and it's going to work.
Can the Government Leader explain to Yukoners, how are we going to accomplish this thing when we're going to reduce the rate of return for YEC, the NDP government's creamed off all the profits, they have no money to do anything? How are these things going to be accomplished?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, our vision is to keep ratepayers' money in ratepayers' pockets. Our vision is not to put mega-bucks into mega-projects with mega-mortgages ...
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Order please.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: ... that will put this territory at risk. That's not our vision. The member wants to talk about vision. The member brought forward, at great length, his idea for a great, big coal-fired electrical generating station. The only debate around the Cabinet table, presumably, in those days was whether it was going to be $75 million or $125 million, or whatever the price was going to be.
The point is it is a huge mortgage. Now where would we be today if we had that huge mortgage? Well, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't even be talking. While the Yukon Party was in power, the 58 percent that they were asking for when Anvil Range went down would look like peanuts compared to what the utility would have to be asking for now in order to pay for this member's vision. Our vision is to keep ratepayers' money in ratepayers' pockets. That's our vision.
Mr. Ostashek: Well, I'm glad he's going to leave the ratepayers a few cents because he's been picking their pockets for years with their policies on power in the Yukon. They've been picked almost dry.
Mr. Speaker, with the size of the current power rate increases for municipalities and businesses being 16 percent the first year - and climbing; that's not the end of it - several communities and businesses will find it considerably cheaper to go it alone and produce their own power. We already have the City of Dawson threatening that. That is going to cost YEC more customers and consequently reduce the profits. I would like to know how this Government Leader...
Speaker: Order please. I would ask the Member for Kluane to stop his heckling, please.
Mr. Ostashek: I would like to ask the Government Leader how he and his government are going to cope with the potential problem of driving customers away from the grid. They've already done it with several private industry customers because they can't provide power at a reasonable cost, and the problem is going to get worse and worse, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll take the opportunity - rather than respond to all the nonsense in the member's preamble and even the tone of the question - to simply say this: we are proposing, and we've put on the table, some options which talk about more affordable electrical rate increases, nine percent and flatlined over the next four or five years, in order to ensure that the power is as affordable as possible and the rates are stable. That's what we've said we are prepared to do because we've put ratepayers very high on the list of priorities - in fact, at the top of the list.
So, I want to point out to the member that when the member talks about wanting to build new infrastructure, he's talking about building new mortgages, building new responsibilities, building new costs, increasing the risk and, ultimately, increasing rates. The member's vision does serious damage to ratepayers and serious damage to the potential for this economy. We don't buy that vision.
The Energy Corporation has put forward a proposal. It's different from the government's proposal. People have a chance to weigh all of the proposals and make comment. If they want higher rates, they can ask for higher rates. If they want lower rates, they can ask for lower rates.
The point of the matter is that the government is very much - and even the Energy Corporation to a lesser extent - thinking about more affordable rates and, certainly, stable rates.
Question re: Family Violence Prevention Act, regulations
Mrs. Edelman: My question is for the Minister of Justice.
In November 1997, the minister introduced the family violence legislation. This legislation is not doing anything for families, particularly women, because no regulations have yet been enacted. The minister indicated that she has, at last, struck an implementation committee to, and I quote, "Form the process of developing regulations" on the Family Violence Prevention Act. Why is the first consultation meeting scheduled for the end of April, and is ongoing consultation scheduled for throughout the summer?
Surely, the minister has been in the Yukon long enough to know that summer is not the best time to hold a consultation process. Or, is this a new angle of the NDP - pretend consultation? Hold it when no one is available, so you can pretend you consulted.
If the minister really cared about input into this process, she would have made sure that the consultation took place when people were available. Why is this consultation in the summer?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, I guess the member didn't remember the answers that I gave to her question when she asked it a couple of weeks ago, so I'll respond to them again gladly.
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, when the member first asked that question, the implementation committee was not struck until we had received responses from all the organizations who were invited to send representatives to participate on the implementation committee.
We now have had responses from First Nations, from women's groups, from shelters, from people around the territory who are interested in participating on the implementation advisory committee.
I would also respond to the member that the consultation work is beginning now. It is not summer in April and May and June. We do not write off six months for summer. We are starting the process now, we will continue it through and, if it's not completed before people have gone for summer vacations, it can continue after people return from their summer vacations.
Mrs. Edelman: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this is going to be "virtual" consultation, as the minister has not allocated any funding to conduct it.
Will the minister tell the House where she intends to get the money for this consultation process and how much money she has available for this very important legislation affecting Yukoners, particularly Yukon women?
She indicated last November that funds are available within the Justice budget for education purposes. Exactly how much money is available for public awareness, training for the JPs and the RCMP, and the consultation process?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a specific dollar figure that I can give to the member on my feet. I can look into that. What I can tell the member is that we have staff resources and money in the budget to cover the costs of talking with communities. That's a regular part of how we do business, so there are funds available to do that.
Mrs. Edelman: On November 18, 1997, the minister stated in the House that the implementation may take up to a year to complete. If the minister is sure that she has appropriate time and resources available to complete the consultation, will she commit today that she will meet the one-year time frame she promised in the House last November?
Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that it may take up to a year to complete the implementation. What I can make a commitment to to the member is that we will complete the work of talking to communities and having public involvement before we finalize the implementation of the legislation. The member stood there and requested that we have implementation that ensures community input, and that's exactly what we will do.
Question re: Energy issues, questionnaire
Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the energy commissioner. The energy commissioner recently sent out a questionnaire to Yukoners on energy issues. I think the questionnaire's a good idea, but I'm having some trouble with the questions. The first question reads, "There is a general direction to encourage Yukoners to reduce their use of energy. Do you feel this would be a good policy for the government to adopt?" Then question 6 reads, "The government is working to reduce energy consumption within their own operations. Do you support this approach?"
The question I have for the commissioner is, does he really think we have to canvass the public on those questions? Does he seriously think somebody is going to reply saying, "Shucks, I think we should be wasting energy"? Why are we wasting paper on determining the obvious?
Mr. McRobb: I'm glad the member has taken me up on the offer to read some of the excellent product the commission has available. I would suggest that he not cherry pick, you know, certain parts of the questions out of the questionnaire, and deal with it in the context for which it is intended.
I think the member is maybe confusing electrical energy with total energy for home heating and so on, and in government buildings. As the member knows, the government has initiatives now underway and is contemplating furthering those initiatives, depending on the feedback from the public. Certainly, these issues probably will elicit a positive response. We want to see what better ideas are out there, and that's part of the consultation process.
Mr. Cable: I think what the public is getting on to is the real reason why we're having energy rate increases. Let me cherry pick another question for the minister.
Let me read question 7(4). "The government could reduce the cost of regulating electricity rates by streamlining the regulatory process while maintaining adequate accountability of the utilities companies. Do you agree with this approach? Yes. Explain", or "No. Explain."
Does the commissioner seriously think that more than one percent of the population would find that question comprehensible?
Mr. McRobb: Obviously, the opposition parties aren't able to comprehend the question. Otherwise, maybe we'd get some constructive feedback from them.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I did not write these questions. These questions came out of this commission, okay? This is a staff -
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Order please.
Mr. McRobb: This is a staff issue. If the member has a problem with it, maybe he can, you know, deliver his concerns to me, and I'll discuss them with the deputy commissioner.
Mr. Cable: In case the commissioner is missing the point, I am delivering the concerns right now.
When will the results be compiled, and will the commissioner be providing the House with the results immediately after he has them?
Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, these results are being compiled by the statistics branch, and after that the results will be made public, and I'll ensure the member gets a copy of these results when they are available.
Question re: Finlayson caribou, predator control
Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for Renewable Resources. Yesterday in the House, the minister stated that the reason why the Fish and Wildlife Management Board agreed with the recommendation to do a permit hunt in the Finlayson area was to get much more clear numbers on the harvest in the area. Well, this, I believe, is totally absurd, because the minister knows that they've had compulsory reporting by hunters in the area. If they don't fill out the forms, they don't get a licence next year. He knows the number of caribou killed last year was 57.
Mr. Speaker, I also take exception to this talk about helicopter gunships being used for predator control.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Ostashek:
And the Government Leader is laughing; that's how much respect he has for the wildlife managers also. He's sitting there snickering.
Mr. Speaker, this is an insult to the fish and wildlife managers within the department who conduct and implement these wolf control programs. They did so in the Finlayson area, and they did so in the Aishihik area, and the Aishihik one was exemplary and was held up as a model for other jurisdictions to follow.
In light of that, I would like to know if the minister is ready to apologize to these professionals here and now.
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, we have a process that we are following. We are working with community people on management of wildlife and we will continue to operate along those lines. We're not going to be going out of bounds and making decisions without them on major issues like this. We have community consultation on predator control and, in particular, the wolf conservation management plan, which has had a lot of public input into it. We use these types of studies as a guide for our decisions. I'm sure that the renewable resource councils and Fish and Wildlife Management Board do the same thing.
Mr. Ostashek: It's quite clear to see that this minister doesn't have any respect for the people who are working on his behalf. He's not even prepared to apologize for a remark that was very rude and crude, Mr. Speaker. He shouldn't listen to advice from the Member for Faro when making those kinds of comments.
Mr. Speaker, I had numerous residents call me this morning. They listened to the minister's comments yesterday, saying that he's consulting with the communities. The question was, "Who in the hell is he talking to? He sure wasn't talking to -"
Mr. McRobb: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Point of order
Speaker: Member for Kluane, on a point of order.
Mr. McRobb: The member has obviously stooped a little too far this time. I would suggest to you that his language is unparliamentary and request a ruling.
Speaker: Leader of the official opposition, on the point of order.
Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, I believe there's been a lot worse language than that used in this Legislature. I'm just relating what was told to me by constituents. They're not my comments.
Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, if I were to relate to this Legislature what people say about the member opposite, I'd be barred from here for life. Some of us have more class.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Order.
Mr. Phillips: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. The Member for Kluane is just a little upset that he got beat up a little -
Speaker: Order please.
Unparliamentary language
Speaker: Would the member withdraw the word "hell", as it is unparliamentary.
Withdrawal of remark
Mr. Ostashek: No problem, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue with the question, after I was so rudely interrupted by the Member for Kluane.
In view of the fact that the minister already knows the number of caribou that are being harvested by non-native hunters in the Finlayson area and he has also denied that he is just listening to the green environmentalist wing of the NDP by implementing a permit hunt for non-native hunters, I can only conclude that he has another motive for wanting the permit system. Or, does the minister simply want to restrict non-native hunters in the area?
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I just told the member and held up the wolf conservation management plan that had public consultation in its development.
Mr. Speaker, he's asking who we are listening to - Yukoners, obviously. It's something the Yukon Party has never done, so it's really a new concept to them.
We will continue to be working with the First Nations. They have voiced their concerns and their direction on how they can help us with the management of the Finlayson caribou herd and wildlife in that area. It's with the general, local people that we are working with. It's not splitting natives and non-natives up and drawing a line between them.
Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, Yukoners don't believe that for one minute. I sat at the Fish and Wildlife Management Board meetings. Overwhelmingly, nobody was in favour of the permit hunts. Eighty-seven out of 94 submissions were against the permit hunts, so who is this minister listening to? He certainly isn't consulting with the Yukon public, and I look forward to the next election campaign and the leaders debate when his leader tries to defend that position.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Ostashek: Yes, I will be here, Mr. Speaker. The minister -
Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Order please. Order. Stop the heckling.
Applause
Mr. Ostashek: I'm pleased you have so much faith in me.
Mr. Speaker, the minister, as a former chief of a Yukon First Nation, knows full well that the government has no authority to tell First Nation governments what to do or what hunting restrictions it will impose on the citizens in the area. The only control the minister has is over the resident hunters, the non-native hunters.
So, I would ask him one final time if he would clarify his intent regarding the permit system in the area, when in fact it's not going to add to the number of caribou in the area, it's not going to decrease the herd. There are only 57 bulls being taken by non-resident hunters. Why does he want to curtail them further?
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, we're trying to get some control of what hunting has taken place within the area, whether it's caribou, moose or what not, and the number of people that are accessing the area.
I know the opposition is advocating ...
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Order please.
Hon. Mr. Fairclough: ... a position not supported by the wolf conservation management plan, which their government adopted. They've supported the plan in the past, and where's that support now? You're telling the general public that this government should be doing a wolf kill and, Mr. Speaker, we said we will not be doing that. We will be working with the First Nation and the local people in all jurisdictions when it comes to management of wildlife.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed.
We will proceed with Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Unanimous request requested
Mr. Cable: On a point, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: The Member for Riverside on a point of order.
Mr. Cable:
Mr. Speaker, although legislative returns have not been tabled in response to written questions 3 and 4, which are standing on the Order Paper in my name, I have received the information requested in those questions. I would therefore request the unanimous consent of the House to have them dropped from the Order Paper.
Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted and written question 3 and 4 will dropped from the Order Paper.
OPPOSITION PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
Clerk: Motion No. 122, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.
Motion No. 122
Speaker: It is moved by the Member for Klondike
THAT it is the opinion of this House that in view of the current unacceptably high unemployment rate in Watson Lake that the Government of Yukon should undertake some major capital projects in that community in order to create employment opportunities for the many unemployed.
Mr. Jenkins: In light of the very tough economic times being experienced in Yukon, rural Yukon has been especially hard hit, and in particular the Town of Watson Lake. As members are fully aware, Watson Lake's unemployment has reached an all-time high with extremely little relief in sight for both the short term and long term.
In the next while, I intend to outline some of the reasons for the plight facing Watson Lake, remind members what commitments were made in the NDP A Better Way and what could be done to turn this unfortunate situation around in Watson Lake and elsewhere in Yukon.
Let's start by looking at the made-in-Yukon forestry policy. There's a lack of made-in-Yukon forestry policy, according to the NDP. Rather than working toward the development of a comprehensive forestry policy that will put Yukoners back to work, what has the Government of the Yukon done? Upon taking office, this NDP government established four commissions, one of which was headed by the Member for Watson Lake to establish a forestry policy for Yukon. We don't want to even consider discussing the energy commissioner or his commission, as these will probably be recognized for what they're worth - just an exercise in futility and a soap box for the Member for Kluane to spout his rhetoric on the topic.
But let's dwell on the area that will affect Watson Lake - Watson Lake and the forestry commission, headed by the Member for Watson Lake. Since the commission came about, it has done literally nothing to produce a comprehensive forestry policy, and even refused, early on, to participate in forestry meetings being held by the federal government, which still holds overall responsibility for forestry in Yukon. Still to this day, despite the efforts of the previous Yukon Party, forestry in the Yukon is in the hands of the federal government.
Last June, DIAND held a three-day workshop in Watson Lake to discuss forestry regulations. The MLA for Watson Lake, the forestry commissioner, put in a brief appearance and stated that Yukon's government's non-participation in that workshop did not reflect negatively on DIAND's regulation, but showed that the Yukon government was becoming more aware of its rights as a government.
Now, just what does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It probably means that the commissioner of forestry - or the forest commissioner, however he chooses to be known - doesn't have an idea as to where we're heading, doesn't know how to get there, and just offers, as an excuse, that the Yukon government is becoming more aware of its rights as a government and doesn't want to participate.
Mr. Speaker, this is complete nonsense. If the Government of the Yukon doesn't feel it should be doing anything, then why does the forest commission exist? Why does it exist? Because the Government of the Yukon doesn't want to participate. No one can explain it in the forest commission, especially the commissioner.
The NDP was very critical of the previous Yukon Party government's process to develop a made-in-Yukon forest policy, despite all the work that had been completed, including an all-encompassing workshop sponsored by the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, ongoing discussions with DIAND, the forest industry and First Nations, and out of that came the development of a forestry management policy discussion paper.
In fact, at the time that the discussion paper was released, the Member for Faro, in his usual highfalutin, high-tone description, analyzed the paper as being void of any substance and ignored all the tough issues, such as 10-year allowable cuts, distribution of benefits and management of the ecosystem. This was back in November 1995, Mr. Speaker. So, since that time to date, really, what has transpired?
The Member for Faro then went on to say, "Considerable efforts should be made in this area to develop a policy." Well, the NDP government has now been in power for some 18 months. They are just about two years into their mandate.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Jenkins: Just about two years; just about two years.
And, we're still at square one, Mr. Speaker, and hope is fading that this government will ever do anything in this regard.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Jenkins: As far as my math goes, it's not nearly as inaccurate as the NDP calculators that are known to exist in British Columbia, which I'm sure some members of that caucus have got hold of.
We go to the NDP caucus publication, entitled State of Affairs, dated December 1995. In that publication, the NDP identified four points toward economic health for Yukon, one of which was to develop a comprehensive forestry policy.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we're still at square one in this regard. In that paper, it stated, "The New Democratic caucus believes that forestry is the single biggest economic and environmental issue facing Yukoners. How your government decides to manage this resource will determine whether or not there will be a forest to manage in 100 years."
That's quite an interesting statement. It gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling, Mr. Speaker, but it's not a forest management policy. It's a statement.
It's a statement that does attract attention. Sounds great, Mr. Speaker, but does nothing. And it gives no indication as to what policies this NDP government is going to produce. To date, they have failed to produce any on this issue.
Given the NDP government's track record in managing sawmills in Watson Lake, I would have to say that Yukon's forest industry and economic health is nothing but in an extremely sorry state of affairs.
More recently, Mr. Speaker, in a response from the Government Leader to the opposition leader on August 25, 1997, the statement was made, "The Yukon government believes there is a better way to proceed with the development of a Yukon forest strategy. It begins with listening to Yukon people and dedicating the necessary resources to pursue their thoughtful advice." That's a most interesting statement.
Well, the normal process, when we go through to consult, is that we assemble a group of people and an outline of the issues that we wish to consult the people on. We go out, and we schedule a series of public meetings with all parties affected, advertise them, develop a conclusion to the necessary issues, and bring forward the results of this study. This is a normal consulting process.
On the other hand, we have the NDP way of consulting, where we consult and consult and consult again, and consult until such a time as we receive the answers that we want to hear. Or, take the answers and ignore them and hide behind some board or some committee or some review, and not make a decision whatsoever.
So, the NDP way of consulting is an interesting way but does it really allow the voice of Yukoners to be heard? Ask any minister in this House if they will abide by the decision of the majority, and you can't get a straight answer out of any one of them. They'll waffle and use some of the best weasel words I've ever heard. It's amazing, Mr. Speaker. The wonderful world of political rhetoric.
Back at the time of the letter from the Government Leader to the leader of the official opposition, criticism was also made of the lack of First Nation involvement in the development of forestry policy and the devolution of responsibility from the federal government to the Yukon government. Well, let's look at what has been happening in this regard, Mr. Speaker. Virtually nothing.
Last fall, the MLA for Watson Lake held a sustainable forest economy workshop in Whitehorse. Well, this workshop, Mr. Speaker, was almost identical to what was held by the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment in 1995. And, I might add, the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment is mandated by law to exist and it's required to consult and it's required to report to the government, unlike these Cabinet commissioners who, when you question the conflict commissioner, the conflict commissioner comes back and says that, well, really it's the deputy commissioner who has all of the power. The commissioners themselves are just messenger boys to carry the message from the deputy commissioner to Cabinet.
Well, they are very expensive messenger boys - extremely expensive messenger boys - when you analyze the total cost that these members are incurring to address their chairmanship or their Cabinet commission responsibilities.
So I guess we can refer to the Cabinet commissioners as messenger boys. And I guess, henceforth, this House can acknowledge them as Cabinet commissioners/messenger boys, and we'll have a true recognition of their responsibilities and the way they are looked upon by the conflicts commissioner, who has taken the time to report back and outline, for the benefit of the House, how these commissioners are viewed.
Well, just look at what happened. Going back to the workshop that the MLA Cabinet commissioner/messenger boy from Watson Lake held on sustainable forestry, just prior to the workshop, it was made known, by way of a letter from the Grand Chief of the Yukon First Nations, that they were extremely frustrated with the way the forestry commissioner was developing a forestry management plan - extremely frustrated.
The letter read, "I must express the disappointment and frustration of Yukon First Nations that the government has decided to proceed with the development of forestry management strategies prior to the completion of the forestry letter of understanding between the parties."
It went on to say, "I note that Yukon First Nations have no role or input into the planning and development of the workshop, its agenda, or the community-based forestry paper."
Now, here's a government, Mr. Speaker, that prides itself on its ability to consult with the people, to get all parties into a great big circle, to bring all Yukoners together and allow them their say.
We look at forestry; we look at the position taken by the First Nations in regard to this meeting. My gosh, what happened to this point that the NDP prides itself upon - its consulting ability, its ongoing ability to consult. As soon as they gain power, it's out the window.
We have applied the other way of consulting that we set the rules, set the agenda, give the Member for Kluane and his fellow commissioners a great big soap-box to stand on and allow them to spew forth whatever they wish - gobbledegook, if you start looking at some of the questionnaires sent out. This is the biggest amount of gobbledegook you've ever seen assembled anywhere. This is the better way, we're told. I guess the question is: is this the better way?
If we go back to the letter, following the release of the letter, it was further found out that the Liard First Nation would be boycotting the workshop and further discussions with the Government of Yukon on this very important issue. So much for the better way. So much for the forest commissioner from Watson Lake, and so much for anything happening in the forestry industry in Watson Lake.
I would also be remiss if I didn't make mention of the government's set of walking tours held last year. As members will recall, these guided tours covered everything from shut down sawmills to studying the bugs and the bats in the Yukon wilderness. Contrary to what the government believes, bat outings and sawmill tours do nothing to develop a forestry policy in the territory and do nothing to get Yukoners back to work.
Of course, we could pay them to take these walking tours. We could offer them considerable incentives, pay their transportation costs to Watson Lake, their housing costs and their per diem to go for a walk in the woods with the forestry commissioner and see the bats and the bugs. Oh, what a great idea, Mr. Speaker. This is a better way.
The forestry commissioner went on to say, "Take a walk in the woods with us this summer, and we'll show you there is more to the forests than just the trees." The NDP said that they were going to bring all the parties together. Yukoners did not realize that the NDP commitment to get everyone to work together actually meant traipsing through the woods together. I guess, when it becomes known that if we're going to gather in a circle in the woods, we have to cut down a few trees to create that circle, I wonder how the forestry commission is going to handle that responsibility, Mr. Speaker.
I don't believe that the people of Watson Lake or, indeed, the Yukon are too impressed by their MLA walking through the woods in light of the record high employment in that community.
Now, if that isn't enough, we superimpose on this forestry commission and the issue of forestry the protected areas strategy - not just on the forestry, but on the mining and all Yukon. When we look at what we have in place currently, Mr. Speaker, we have a set of regulations and rules that must be adhered to if we are going to do any development of any sort. We have to take out land use permits. We have to get involved in a whole series and a whole process to get the necessary permits in place to undertake any project of any importance or to extract any of the Yukon's raw materials. We get this protected areas strategy, superimposed on me, to appease the greenies in the NDP. If it isn't enough that the forest industry continues to be in complete turmoil as a result of not having a made-in-Yukon forest policy -
Mr. Fentie: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Point of order
Speaker: The Member for Watson Lake, on a point of order.
Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to this House that environmentalists should not be called "greenies". They are people who have an agenda very important to this territory. I would offer that the member should respect the fact that this people are environmentalists.
Speaker's ruling
Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Member for Watson Lake, the Chair has been noticing that many members have been referring to each other and people outside of the House in an insulting way. The Chair would request that this stop and members refer to each other, and to others, in a respectful way.
The Member for Klondike, please continue.
Mr. Jenkins: Before I was so rudely interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I must advise the House that I do like conservationists - affectionately known as greenies. It's an affectionate recognition of this group in our society. I didn't mean it any sort of a derogatory sense whatsoever. I don't look upon it as being a derogatory term.
Before I was so rudely interrupted by the Member for Watson Lake, because he's probably somewhat concerned with his position on this matter and what is happening with the protected areas strategy, I'd like to make reference to a letter that was in the paper recently, from the chairman of the Southeast Yukon Lumberman's Association.
Mr. Speaker, that letter read as follows: "When the forestry commission was first established, perception among the industry was that government was going to work with us and develop a policy that will lead to a stable, working environment. Well, the feds have worked with us but now the perception is that the forestry commission is throwing a new hurdle in our path. We perceive that the protected spaces strategy is spearheaded by the commissions. We feel that it's much more interested in appealing to the environmental lobbying than creating much-needed jobs in the Watson Lake area."
Well, Mr. Speaker, without reading any further, the letter ends in calling upon the government to immediately halt the process and shelve it until such time as the land claims are settled in the Watson Lake area. And that's probably a long way off because, when you start looking at the total areas set aside from existing land claims and proposed land claims, you start superimposing, in the Yukon, the federal parks, proposed federal parks, Yukon parks, and start imposing on areas that are protected areas.
What's left? What's left, Mr. Speaker? It's been suggested that all we will have left are fire-breaks, a make-work project of the forestry commissioner.
Again, this NDP government professes to be caring and responsive to the needs of Yukoners, yet it is unwilling to act upon what is being said by Yukoners.
Needless to say, the fast tracking of the protected areas strategy will do very little, if anything, in establishing a sustainable and viable - not to mention thriving - forestry industry in Yukon, let alone its impact on the mining industry, Mr. Speaker.
Let's look at mining. Since this NDP government took office in 1996, Yukoners have witnessed a downturn in mining investment in the Yukon.
Now, some of this downturn can be attributed to low world base metal prices, as well as low world precious metal prices - as well as the Bre-X scandal that occurred not long ago, and the state of the economy in the far east, right around the other side of the world, Mr. Speaker. The Asian economy is impacting upon us.
Despite these factors, it is incumbent upon the government to create a climate that is conducive to the growth of our economy and that of our strengths, those being mining, tourism and forestry. Well, what we have here is not the Asian flu, Mr. Speaker. It's called the NDP flu in the Yukon and British Columbia, and there's just starting to be a glimmer of hope in British Columbia, but we haven't got much hope here in the Yukon.
What we need is a government to create the environment that sends a clear message to the mining industry and to the forestry industry that we have a defined set of goal posts in the Yukon - and a set of regulations - and if you come up with a proposal here in Yukon and you go through those guidelines and stay within the goal posts, you will be successful in achieving the necessary permitting for your project to go ahead.
What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a whole set of federal regulations and, superimposed upon those federal regulations, we have all of these other areas governed by the Yukon government, this NDP government that's causing the NDP flu here in the Yukon, and that is that the rules are in a constant change of flux from one day to the next. The goal posts keep moving and the message being sent to the mining industry and to the forestry industry is that they'll change. We don't know what the rules are today, we don't know what they're going to be tomorrow, but we're going to consult with you and ask you your opinion and then not do anything that encourages these people to come and explore or log in the Yukon. It's virtually impossible to jump through all the loops today and get a permit to go and cut some logs or to put in place a mining proposal and to jump through the permitting process in a timely fashion, Mr. Speaker.
When we look at it all, what we have from this government is the fast tracking of the protected areas strategy, and that is discouraging any type of investment in the Yukon. This government talks the talk, but it seems not to be prepared to walk the walk.
Let's refer to an incident that occurred in January, Mr. Speaker, in which the Chief of the Liard First Nation announced there was legal uncertainty about staking mining claims in the entire southeast Yukon. Now, that announcement came at the same time that the Government Leader and the Minister of Economic Development were in Vancouver attending the Cordilleran Roundup, along with the Minister of Renewable Resources - and who else was there? There was quite an entourage down there from government, but those were the three ministers that I witnessed there. When we look at the three ministers attending the Cordilleran Roundup, this is the largest mining convention in western North America, Mr. Speaker.
It's trying to attract mining investment in the territory. It's being suggested that I embarrassed the Yukon. I probably embarrassed the NDP governments in British Columbia and the Yukon, and rightly so.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Speaker: Order. Order please.
Mr. Jenkins: The message being sent out by the NDP governments to the mining industry in both British Columbia and the Yukon is one of, basically, "We talk to you nicely, we shake your hands, but we're staying away." It's the no-development party, not the New Democratic Party. No development, nothing going on, and mining exploration and mining activity is probably going to be at an all-time low in the Yukon this year.
In fact, economic activity will probably be at an all-time low in the Yukon this year, especially in Watson Lake, Mr. Speaker, where if you haven't got a government job and if you're not on unemployment, I guess the only other option is the other NDP program plan; that is, "Come and see us for social assistance."
Well, people are loathe to take it upon themselves to access any of these support systems. They want jobs. They want work and this government has a dismal track record in rural Yukon, especially in Watson Lake, for providing jobs and providing work.
Let's go back, Mr. Speaker, to the Cordilleran Roundup, where I stated the truth: that the NDP governments in British Columbia and the Yukon were impediments to mining activity or to economic growth and were an impediment to the growth of economic development in Yukon and British Columbia. In fact, I know a lot of people in the mining industry - probably far greater numbers than the members opposite have access to - and that's not the message I received - as what's being suggested.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Jenkins: Yes, and it was probably NDP people who were embarrassed by what I had to say, I'm sure.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Jenkins: Well, let's go back to the Cordilleran Roundup and what was said by the Chief of the Liard First Nation. Rather than have the Government of Yukon approach the Liard First Nation and work toward an immediate resolution of this issue, the Government of Yukon chose to do nothing.
But, that's not unexpected. That's what they usually do: nothing; nothing at all. It's something that did not come as much of a surprise, in view of the government's lack of progress in settling land claims in this area.
Mr. Speaker, any implied threat of legal action will do nothing to attract investment to the Yukon and will only serve to drive mining companies away.
This is a big world we live in. In fact, I know more mining people that I've met in the Yukon that are now involved in mining projects in every other place in the world than Yukon. They are in Africa, they're in Australia, they're in South America and they're in Alaska - our next door neighbour - working for Canadian companies in the mining industry. But, here in the Yukon, the message being sent by this no-development party is not conducive to attracting mining exploration or mining companies into the area.
The mining potential and the oil and gas potential in the Watson Lake region, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat known, but tremendous benefits could accrue to the Yukon if these were put into production, if these areas were logged and if mines were developed. But it's not going to happen.
This implied threat of legal action is not being addressed by this government, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not sure if any approaches have been made to the Liard First Nation to get them on side - to get them working with government - and to partner with government in this regard, so that all Yukoners can benefit, whether they be Yukon First Nations or otherwise. This is just another example of a government that is full of talk, but no action - once again.
Let's go on to explore the issue of the Watson Lake administration building. It's been almost two years since Watson Lake suffered a major tragedy, when fire destroyed its main administration building, which housed its firehall, ambulance services, the post office, the library, the building inspector's office, the office of the Department of Health and Social Services, probation services office branch, the Town of Watson Lake municipal office, the housing association, the court office, the courthouse and the outreach employment centre. These are all important services provided by government to the people of Watson Lake.
Now, the challenge that the previous government faced was to find a temporary home for the various government departments and agencies to enable them to continue to provide services to the people. In conjunction with the town, the assessment was completed, potential office space was analyzed and what other facilities might be made available.
The other challenge was how to best meet not only the short-term needs but the long-term needs of Watson Lake. And it was at that time that work first began with the community and other departments and agencies on how to replace that building. An account of approximately half a million dollars had been established for the loss and damage of its building and the rest would be taken from general revenue.
Since this government took office almost two years, virtually nothing has been done to meet the long-term needs of the community. Instead, the government proposed building a centre - with the Yukon government, the municipality, the Liard First Nation - despite the fact that no First Nations offices were displaced by the fire. But it might have been a good idea if we'd have put it all together.
The feasibility study was completed last May, the Town of Watson Lake have done their own quiet thing for some time, and yet nothing has changed since then.
We hear today from the Member for Watson Lake that there are no projects in Watson Lake that are ready to go - no projects ready to go in Watson Lake; my gosh, Mr. Speaker, how can the Member for Watson Lake even begin to suggest something when this structure was one thing that, if his government had taken the initiative, put some effort into it, would be ready to go. It would be there and it could provide a lot of jobs and a lot of work to individuals in Watson Lake for this forthcoming construction season.
In the meantime, most of the temporary dwellings that are not being rented by the private sector, Yukon Housing Corporation - I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's an abuse of the Yukon Housing Corporation's mandate to take this many housing units out of their stock and use them for this other purpose, for office space. They could rent from the private sector, but the Yukon Housing Corporation is providing them.
Now, logically, we don't feel we should simply rush into a decision on this side of the House. There's been ample time for the government to review this situation, engage in discussions, create a dialogue with the town, and make some decisions, rather than engage in yet another study. The construction of a facility, or other facilities, to replace the Watson Lake administration building could be presently providing much-needed jobs for the people of Watson Lake.
You know, here's another example of this NDP government missing the boat in Watson Lake.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this NDP government has presented two budgets to this House. Watson Lake was ignored in the government's first budget and again in the second budget. One only has to read from the most recent issue of the Watson Lake's Town Crier, their newspaper, in which it makes reference to the 1998 YTG budget as having omitted to include anything for Watson Lake at a time when employment claims are up by some 29.1 percent from December to January. U
nemployment is rampant in Watson Lake. It's probably the highest rate of unemployment anywhere in the Yukon.
In response, the Mayor of Watson Lake and the Chief of the Liard First Nation agreed to approach the Government Leader and members of the Cabinet of the lack of capital dollars being spent in Watson Lake. In the newsletter, the Member for Watson Lake claims that the NDP government is spending nearly $6 million in Watson Lake this year, the highest proportion of capital dollars being spent outside of Whitehorse. Boy, that's a stretch, Mr. Speaker. I wonder where Pinocchio is when you need him. If only this were true then the people of Watson Lake wouldn't have to be asked who is getting all the jobs.
Some Hon. Member: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Point of order
Speaker: The Minister of Health and Social Services, on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I believe that the Member for Klondike's reference to Pinocchio is actually an inference that my colleague, the Member for Watson Lake, is indeed telling an untruth, and I would suggest that perhaps he need to withdraw that.
Now, I know there is a somewhat chequered history over there in terms of their veracity, but perhaps we could get a ruling from yourself on this. I understand some time ago, Mr. Speaker, that there was another member who was called out of order on a very similar reference, so perhaps we could get a bit of a clarification.
Speaker: The Member for Riverdale North, on the point of order.
Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. I think the Member for Klondike was just pointing out
that the forest industry in Watson Lake is important and he was asking where Pinocchio was, and Pinocchio is still standing as a tree because we don't have a forest policy and we can't cut any trees down in Watson Lake. So, I don't think there's a point of order.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: I am ready to rule.
Speaker's ruling
Speaker: When members rise to speak to a point of order, I would remind them that the Chair would be looking for advice as to which rule has or has not been broken. It does not help the Chair when members simply state that there is no point of order, as the Member for Riverdale North did. When that is done, it sounds like members are giving the Chair direction rather than advice. When the member said, "I wonder where Pinocchio is when you need him," he did not refer to the member as Pinocchio. Please continue.
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, when we look at the YTG budget for Watson Lake, when we look at the efforts that are being made by that community to get something done and create jobs in that community, I just take you to the Town Crier of April 22 and a letter received in response to a request from council. The little, short clip reads as follows: "Council received a reply from the Minister of Transportation Services concerning the town's requests that local contractors benefit from the expenditure of $5.7 million in highway construction. YTG has allocated $3.7 for the Alaska Highway and $2 million for the Campbell Highway. It was asked that contracts be divided into smaller components so that local contractors could tender their bids and not be excluded due to high bonding requirements."
The minister's reply indicated that only two $200,000 contracts would be forthcoming from the $5.7 million construction budget. It also goes on to indicate that the Watson Lake MLA has made a commitment to speak to Mr. Keenan.
So, what we're saying here is, so much for work, so much for all these fancy numbers thrown out by the Member for Watson Lake but, as a consequence of those numbers, only two contracts, totalling $200,000 each, are going to be let. What's happening to the rest of the money that was supposedly going into that area? What happens to the request from Watson Lake to break this down into smaller contracts?
Well, when we have the issue of the Mayor of Watson Lake and the Chief of the Liard First Nation approaching the Government Leader and Cabinet for the lack of capital dollars that are being spent in Watson Lake, if that isn't an indication of a very serious problem in that community, I don't know what is. I certainly don't know what it's going to take to awaken this government, Mr. Speaker - that they're putting all of their eggs in the Whitehorse basket and ignoring rural Yukon. Oh, we'll run around in a dog-and-pony show and consult with the people, talk to them nicely, buy them the occasional lunch or cup of coffee, but as for creating jobs and employment in rural Yukon - no.
If we go on and look at the previous Town Crier newsletter from Watson Lake, we see what the Member for Watson Lake said, that nearly $6 million will be spent in Watson Lake this year, the highest proportion of capital dollars being spent outside of Whitehorse. Wow. Then, when we look at the reality of it, Mr. Speaker, we find that there are two $200,000 contracts being let in the area. That's what the Minister of Community and Transportation Services said in a formal letter to the Watson Lake Town Council. No wonder the people of Watson Lake are reacting, through their mayor and their chief, and asking that something happen in Watson Lake.
The newsletter, Mr. Speaker, goes on to show a graph showing Yukon Party government spending compared to NDP government spending. You know, when you look at it and you review it, those comparisons are complete fabrications. Rather than being open and honest in the comparison, this graph compares apples to oranges. Part of the NDP government spending includes the money being spent on the south Alaska Highway reconstruction and the Campbell Highway. That's all being earmarked as going into Watson Lake. As well, there are some other abnormalities from the previous way that the government broke down these costs - that the monies were originally put into a central pool, but now they're being spread all over.
If you wanted to be honest in a comparison, you'd have to include the amount spent by the previous Yukon Party government on the south Alaska Highway and the Campbell Highway as well. If you do that, the figures would change the graph dramatically, because the Yukon Party government spent $7.5 million in 1993-94, another $5.2 million in 1994-95, $7.5 million again in 1995-96, and $8.8 million in 1996-97, on these highways alone.
Now, if we're going to compare apples, let's compare apples to apples. Let's not compare apples to oranges. Now, I realize that the Member for Watson Lake wants to paint a rosy picture of his performance in this House and his ability to convince his caucus to spend dollars in Watson Lake. The reality is that what we have is very few dollars being spent in Watson Lake, very few of the projects that have the potential to come to fruition even being examined or looked at and, as the Member for Watson Lake has stated himself, we don't have any projects ready to go in Watson Lake.
Maybe it's time that he went home for the weekend and consulted with the people of Watson Lake. I'm sure he'd find out that that certainly isn't the case. There are a lot of projects there that could be done and a lot of capital projects that would put Watson Lakers to work.
He's not going to convince anyone in the Yukon, especially the people in Watson Lake, comparing apples to oranges.
If you also look at the capital expenditure, include these highway expenditures under the previous Yukon Party and add to it the capital expenditures for the contribution for such things as the Northern Lights Centre, it would probably put the NDP spending priorities into a proper perspective. Now, that would be a truer comparison, and we would find out very, very quickly that this government's position and the Member for Watson Lake's position, that Watson Lake is receiving the largest number of capital dollars outside of Whitehorse, is erroneous. Completely erroneous.
Let's look at another project that could be undertaken and for which Watson Lake residents are crying. There is a demonstrated need for a multi-level health care facility in that community. There's no seniors complex in Watson Lake and the organization, the overseeing body, the Signpost Seniors, has sent a proposal to the Minister of Health and Social Services regarding the construction of a multi-level health care facility in the community that would include a total of 12 beds. Six of those beds would be for long-term care, two for respite, one for palliative care, as required - it could also be for long-term care - a couple of beds for rehab therapy and one adult's day care.
There's another initiative that could be undertaken by this government. It is another initiative - a much-needed initiative - to put the people of Watson Lake to work and to address a need that's not just evident today but is a growing need in that community - not just a growing need in Watson Lake, but one throughout all Yukon.
Also attached to that would be a common room, dining room and an area to hold clinics. The suggestion was made that this facility and the common areas could be made available to the whole community and not be utilized solely for seniors. What a wonderful idea. What a great idea. We're not suggesting replacing home care services, but we feel that services should be made available to seniors and individuals when family and friends are not able to be with those in need on a 24-hour basis, for those who need 24-hour care.
Now, this facility would be built in such a manner that it could access the acute area of the hospital, either directly or through a corridor. Right now, the Signpost Seniors group is currently seeking to purchase a lot beside the hospital for the construction of such a facility. Now, where are we with this wonderful initiative, Mr. Speaker?
This facility would be built in such a manner that an expansion could be accommodated further down the line, if need be. If we look at the survey done in the spring of 1995, it shows an estimate of up to 200 seniors, if you include the First Nations in Watson Lake, Upper Liard, Two Mile, Two and a Half Mile and Lower Post. If you encompass all of the area there and have a regional centre to address this identified and growing need, this is another project that could come to fruition in Watson Lake.
Now, there have been some suggestions to use the current beds in the hospital and adapt them accordingly. It's well-intentioned, but there are problems with such a suggestion that there are not enough beds and that the proposal to move away from an institutional setting to a community-based setting would be completely defeated. What we're looking at is long-term care versus acute care. In the hospital, seniors and individuals at large are not able to wander around at their leisure, nor would they be allowed to visit their family and friends in an informal and home-based atmosphere.
But then, we look at the Minister of Health and Social Services, and what we have is the Minister of Health and Social Services not addressing his responsibility in Whitehorse and using the Whitehorse General Hospital for long-term care purposes at a price that far exceeds what long-term care centres are costing. The Minister of Health and Social Services freely admitted in debate yesterday that it costs some $300 per day to keep an individual in the Thomson Centre and some two and a half times that price to keep an individual in the Whitehorse General Hospital.
Well, Mr. Speaker, not only in Watson Lake, but in Dawson, we're not asking for a full-blown health care facility -
Some Hon. Member: On a point of order.
Point of order
Speaker: The Minister of Health and Social Services, on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: I understood that if we are debating a budget at a later date, then discussions or a motion that focuses on exactly the same motion that had been dropped are out of order. Now it appears that the Member for Klondike is trying to bootleg in yet another motion, and I would just suggest that he needs to focus in on the issue at hand.
Speaker's ruling
Speaker: The point of order raised by the Minister of Health and Social Services is that referring at length to the subject of health care facilities in Dawson and Watson Lake anticipates the debate scheduled for tonight.
The Chair agrees that this is a point of order and that the Member for Klondike should not be speaking at length on this subject during debate on Motion No. 122.
Would the Member for Klondike please continue.
Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As I was talking about the extended-care facility in Watson Lake, and which Dawson would also like, Mr. Speaker, both these communities are not requesting a full-blown extended-care facility, such as the Thomson Centre in Whitehorse, but a facility to accommodate and meet the needs of our seniors in our respective communities to enable them to reside in their homes and be with their families and friends without having to relocate to Whitehorse, some many, many miles away.
Now, this would be another initiative, Mr. Speaker - this facility in both of these respective communities - that would employ a number of Yukoners, not just in the construction stage but in the long-term operation of these facilities. But instead, individuals from both these communities are being transported to Whitehorse and housed in Whitehorse. That's not fair to these individuals or to their families.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Point of order
Speaker: The Minister of Health and Social Services, on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I thought your ruling was quite clear on that, and I wonder why the Member for Klondike persists in flouting the ruling of the Speaker in this regard.
Speaker: The Member for Klondike, on the point of order.
Mr. Jenkins: On the point of order, I was just referring to this one area in the context of the total scheme of things and just elaborating on a small section of it. I'm in no way impeding or getting into the total debate that we will be dealing with in this House tonight. I'm talking about the specific instance of a capital project in Watson Lake and the benefit that would accrue, which is the intent and tone of my motion with respect to Watson Lake.
Speaker's ruling
Speaker: The Chair has ruled that the subject of speaking on the subject of a multi-level health care facility in Watson Lake should be restricted during this debate. The Member for Klondike can briefly support that as a capital project under the wording of Motion No. 122. However, he should not use this debate as an opportunity to make an argument for such a facility.
The Member for Klondike, please proceed.
Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'll abide by the Speaker's ruling, but I do refer to the motion that, in view of the current high unemployment rate in Watson Lake, the Government of the Yukon should undertake some major capital projects in that community in order to create employment opportunities for the many unemployed.
And that was just one component of the total plan that I was advancing in the House here today, Mr. Speaker. But I appreciate the latitude that you have allowed me, and I thank you.
The extended-care facility for Watson Lake, Mr. Speaker, would not only create many jobs during its construction phase, but the ongoing staffing of that facility would also create more positions on a permanent basis in the community of Watson Lake. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there would be benefits accruing to Dawson should such a facility be constructed in that area.
Now, I've reviewed the debate in this House previously, and I take you back to April 5, 1989, when there was a motion moved in this House by the Member for Watson Lake, the hon. John Devries: "THAT it is the opinion of this House that there is an urgent need for an extended care facility in Watson Lake."
I would be of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that some work has already been done on this facility and that the potential benefits that could be realized by the construction of this facility would far outweigh moving individuals to Whitehorse for this type of care.
There was an evaluation report - yeah, another study, Mr. Speaker - that was conducted to review community health institutional services in the Yukon back in 1989. At that time, Watson Lake had a cottage hospital that did not have a long-term care home. The report, at that time, recommended the renovation of part of the existing cottage hospital to provide four to six long-term care beds.
Some Hon. Member: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Point of order
Speaker: The Minister of Health and Social Services, on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I raised this originally. Your ruling was clear. I believe you did give the member some latitude to refer to this issue in passing, but, regretful to say, it looks to me very much like the Member for Klondike is misusing his privilege in that regard, and I would ask that he stick to the point at hand and not use this as a forum to advance something that's going to be in part of the Health debate.
Speaker: Member for Klondike, on the point of order.
Mr. Jenkins: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I've moved off the topic of a health care facility, and I'm talking about the Watson Lake hospital. It's another capital project in that community.
Speaker's ruling
Speaker: Order please. The Chair must rule that extended reference to the building of any health care facility in the Yukon must only be briefly referred to during this debate. The topic of health care facilities can be debated tonight.
The Member for Klondike, please continue.
Mr. Jenkins: There was another opportunity to start the construction of a facility of this nature in Watson Lake, when the transfer took place between the federal government and the Government of Yukon. Obviously, the Government Leader's negotiating skills were not effective, as Watson Lakers did not receive this much-needed extended-care facility. We're back to the drawing board, Mr. Speaker, on this issue, and it doesn't appear that anything is going to happen for quite some time.
One of the other areas that would be a major initiative for Watson Lake that could be addressed by this government, but has been left untouched, is the issue of energy.
Watson Lake has -
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Jenkins: Well, I guess I'm getting a little prompting, Mr. Speaker. It's not left untouched. People in Watson Lake are going to be paying considerably more for electricity in the next little while - stabilized electrical rates that are some 20 or 30 percent higher than they currently are to pay for the soap-box for the Member for Kluane. It's a high cost, but we should start looking at the issue of electrical power generation in Watson Lake. We could look at the potential for recovering waste heat and utilizing it in other structures, when we look at the proximity to the natural gas fields surrounding Watson Lake, and we could look at the potential that could be realized to bring that natural gas into that community and use it for the purpose of power generation. Yes, Mr. Speaker, at the onset, there would be a capital cost that would have to be met by the government. But a pipe distribution system, similar to what has been installed throughout Alberta, could be looked at, could be explored, and natural gas could be brought from the fields east of Watson Lake into that community. Indeed, it could then be trucked on up to Whitehorse and utilized here. At the present time, we're trucking propane all the way from Alberta - or it's railheaded to B.C. and then trucked up from there.
If we look at the potential for natural gas in Yukon, it's an area that has not even been explored, Mr. Speaker, yet the benefits that could be reaped by rural Yukon and Whitehorse are very numerous.
It makes us cognizant that government has to recognize these potentials, has to explore them, evaluate them, and has to make a decision. We look at natural gas and we look at the oil potential up on Eagle Plains, and there's not enough market here to put a pipeline in to utilize the product, but it could be trucked down from those respective areas. It could be trucked down and then it could be utilized, as is being done today.
Right now, in Dawson, there are 15,000 gallons of oil that was trucked from Northern Cross' wells in Eagle Plains. That is going to be used for the generation of power in the forthcoming months by the Energy Corporation. Well, that oil could create jobs for Yukoners - the trucking of it, taking the oil out of the ground and scrubbing it. That oil could be used not just in Dawson, but in power generation throughout the Yukon - in places like Watson Lake.
These are all initiatives that could be utilized by our government to create jobs in rural Yukon. These are initiatives that are being ignored - totally ignored by this government and its various agencies.
I'm somewhat dismayed that this motion will probably be amended somewhat by the Member for Watson Lake, or whomever speaks on that side of the House. The amendment will probably change it to pat the NDP government on the back for doing a very good job in Watson Lake and recognize the tremendous efforts that this NDP government is making to consult with rural Yukoners.
Well, that's about all their doing. They're consulting. They're not creating any jobs for them. In fact, there's a dismal track record by this government in creating jobs in rural Yukon - not just in Watson Lake, but through the whole Yukon.
Watson Lake is probably one of the hardest hit, if not the hardest hit community in rural Yukon, that had a long-term, stable economy that had some bumps from the logging industry, but now the logging industry is devastated.
The issue of a forest, Mr. Speaker, is one of equality. What this government has managed to do is create two Yukoners. There is a Whitehorse Yukoner, and there's a TROY Yukoner - TROY meaning the rest of Yukon - with very little exception. Probably the only exception in rural Yukon is the Speaker's own riding of Old Crow, where they're going to have a lot of stimulation to their economy this year as a consequence of a disastrous fire. There's going to be construction there.
Well, we've had the same type of disastrous fire in Watson Lake, Mr. Speaker. No economic activity has been created there as a consequence of that difficult time. Nothing.
The logging industry is in turmoil, other than a quota assigned where the logs are being cut and transported south immediately - raw logs going south. But I guess the Member for Watson Lake is going to create a little bit of employment with a fire-break. With our luck, I'm sure the fires will have been burnt down, or will have burnt all the trees down, before the Member for Watson Lake gets to construct his fire-break.
We have one other industry in the Yukon that's still alive and well, Mr. Speaker, and that's our visitor industry. There's still a lot of potential in Watson Lake to develop it, add to it, and encourage the travellers to stop there and spend some time in that community. There's been an initial thrust made in providing more attractions in Watson Lake through the Northern Lights initiative, an initiative of the Yukon Party government and the former Minister of Tourism, which provided capital dollars into that community and was very, very beneficial to Watson Lake in retaining visitors in that community.
Other initiatives of that nature should be explored by this government, because it is the attractions that travellers stop for; it is the attractions that visitors will stay there to see or be entertained by.
It's just one of the tools necessary to stop visitors travelling the highway and get them to spend a day or two in our respective communities.
But I am sad to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not see any initiatives developing in the visitor industry in Watson Lake, either.
So, let us look down the list for Watson Lake. Let's look at all of the initiatives that this government could have undertaken and could have made some headway on and could have created jobs with.
There's the administration building. That's dead in the water. Nothing is going to happen there until after the turn of the century.
If we look at the logging industry, the Member for Watson Lake will probably still be walking in the woods next year looking at the bugs and bat and the birds and the bees. So, very little is going to happen with the forestry commission.
If we look at another facility that could be constructed in Watson Lake, that would be an extended-care facility. Nothing is going to be happening in that regard.
If we look at mining exploration and mines that could come into production in the Watson Lake area, all of these initiatives are dead in the water.
The one bright light is that this year is purported to be a good visitor season. We're going to have quite a number of visitors coming our way and we could realize some benefits from that.
On the issue of electricity and energy, all we're going to see from this government are higher costs. They're going to call it stabilized costs. In their election campaign, they promised us stabilized electrical prices. The one thing they omitted is, stabilized at what level? It's not going to be at any level acceptable to Yukoners. It's going to be at a level considerably higher than what they are at present, Mr. Speaker, which is going to add to the cost of living, add to the cost of Yukoners maintaining their homes, add to the cost of transportation, and add to the cost of basic food items. It will have a ripple effect through our whole economy and it will be felt the harshest in those areas that have a very high unemployment rate, those areas like Watson Lake.
Now, I don't know what it's going to take to get this government to move. I would have thought, with the number of members elected from rural Yukon, that this government would have a feel for, and an appreciation of, what rural Yukon was like to live in. But I guess, when members move back and forth and eventually reside in Whitehorse, they tend to lose touch with their respective communities, they tend to lose touch with what's happening on the home front, and they listen to the political rhetoric that is coming forward out of their spin doctors to spend, spend, spend in this metropolis of Whitehorse.
We have all these projects ready to go in Whitehorse. We don't have any ready to go in rural Yukon. We've canvassed the list of projects, we've canvassed the list of initiatives. Jeez, there isn't anything we can do in rural Yukon; it's all here in Whitehorse. So, as a consequence, equality is out the window. We've created two types of Yukoners, and rural Yukon, especially Watson Lake, suffers, and suffers considerably.
When you look at the total budget of this government and you look at where our funding is derived, we should be sending thank-you cards to virtually all the rest of Canadians. Over 75 percent - almost 80 percent - of the total funding being spent by this government here are federal transfer payments in one form or another - federal transfer payments from Canada.
We live in a very sheltered environment here. I'm not sure that that's going to continue and last forever, this flow of funding from our federal government. So, we'd best be prepared to put in place that infrastructure that is necessary throughout Yukon to continue with the lifestyle we've come to enjoy. I don't mean living on the government payroll. I mean that we have to have initiatives in place that are going to use our raw materials in an environmentally friendly manner for the betterment and enhancement of all Yukoners, and to enhance or at least maintain our existing lifestyles.
But, this NDP government has failed miserably in that approach. I'm extremely disappointed in all the funding being spent in the one area with nothing for rural Yukon, Mr. Speaker. I think that, after all the members on the government benches have reflected on what I have said here today, they'll probably be ashamed of the decisions they've made, but they'll probably, in quiet reflection among themselves, concur with my thoughts.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Fentie: Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as bad as I feel health-wise, after listening to that diatribe from the Member for Klondike, the juices are flowing. Believe me. I've never heard such a bunch of horse pucky in all my life.
And furthermore, Mr. Speaker -
Mr. Phillips: P
oint of order, Mr. Speaker.
Point of order
Speaker: The Member for Riverdale North on a point of order.
Mr. Phillips: That comment about horse - and I won't say that terrible word he said - is unparliamentary. He should withdraw it.
Speaker: The Member for Watson Lake on the point of order.
Mr. Fentie: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that's no worse than "bunk," "rubbish" or any other adjective.
Unparliamentary language
Speaker: Would the Member for Watson Lake withdraw that "horse" word, please.
Mr. Fentie: I've never heard such bunk, Mr. Speaker, in all my life. Furthermore -
Speaker: Order please. Can the member withdraw that word?
Withdrawal of remark
Mr. Fentie: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw "horse pucky," and I will replace that with, "I've never heard such a bunch of bunk in all my life."
And the motion, Mr. Speaker, before us today, which implies that suddenly, the Yukon Party has become the champion of rural Yukon is the height of hypocrisy. Furthermore -
Unparliamentary language
Speaker: Order please. Withdraw that word "hypocrisy."
Withdrawal of remark
Mr. Fentie: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that word and would replace it with "completely ridiculous."
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, after reading the motion, it comes to mind that it is a good thing that we've got oil and gas legislation, because there is a big pocket of it over there on the Yukon Party side of the House, and I can't wait until we start drilling to expose what a gaseous sham their position really is.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this motion is nothing more than political grandstanding at the expense of my community.
Now, let's look for a moment at the Member for Klondike's lengthy speech today. We begin with forest policy and this government's efforts in forest policy.
Let me remind the members opposite, specifically the Yukon Party, that when they were faced with this extremely important issue, Mr. Speaker, Yukoners from my community came to their government, after investing and creating employment in the forest sector, and asked their government to help them with this issue - help Yukoners work with the federal government to ensure that we can maintain jobs. The Yukon Party government said, "Sorry, there's nothing we can do. It's a federal problem."
Then, they make comments about unemployment in my community of Watson Lake. I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that very act by the Yukon Party government of the day cost us dearly. It cost us in the neighbourhood of 50 jobs in that community, for no reason whatsoever.
I can tell you that since this government has taken office we have vastly improved that, through our efforts with the forest commission and, indeed, the government as a whole. In fact, the improvement can be proven by simply looking at the number of commercial timber permits that were issued during the 1997-98 harvest season. That will explain the facts, Mr. Speaker.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Klondike again made reference to the much-touted meeting in Watson Lake of November 1995 of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment - all 15 people who attended that meeting.
The recommendations that came from that very meeting - and there were three major recommendations - the first one was to educate the Yukon public, raise awareness, help involve them, help them be better able to make informed decisions in forestry - recommendation 1. I can tell you that since October of 1996, with the creation of the forest commission, that's exactly what we've been doing, and one of the initiatives in that regard was the walk in the woods tour.
The Member for Riverdale North is giggling, and I can tell you, and I'll make you an offer. You should come for a walk in the woods with me, and I'll show you how to look beyond the trees so you can see the forest, and you, too, will become a part of the solution, instead of remaining part of the problem.
The second recommendation, Mr. Speaker, was the creation of a body representative -
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Fentie: By the way, it would be of no charge, Mr. Speaker, as the Yukon Party's sensitive about the cost of government expenditures.
The second recommendation was the creation of a body representative of Yukon stakeholders. That has also been done. That's the Yukon Forest Advisory Committee, and I can tell you that through their works we have today developed vision and principles for forest management planning in this territory.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the recommendation that came from that very council was research and development of community-based forest management, and that work is also ongoing.
Now, the Member for Klondike went on to list a number of other issues around forestry, such as workshops that we had been attending, so on and so forth, and he made mention about the sustainable forest economy workshop here in Whitehorse.
He read from letters of how the First Nations did not support it and how the Liard First Nation was boycotting it. Let me, just for the record here today, Mr. Speaker, present the facts. The facts are that, in that workshop, 11 of 14 First Nations participated. Secondly, three members of the Liard First Nation participated, including the hereditary chief from the First Nation. In an interview, a respected elder of Yukon First Nations said, "This is too important not to participate in."
Now, the motion speaks specifically of Watson Lake and record-high unemployment. For the moment, I'd like to speak to that and also remind the members that unemployment and the issues we face on unemployment are Yukon-wide. Now, the community of Watson Lake has faced an economic downturn and the issues of unemployment for 12 long years. These begin with the closure of the Canada Tungsten mine, followed by the closure of the Cassiar, two mainstays for the community. The community of Watson Lake was the marshalling point for those two mines; it was the hub for those two mines. With their closure, economic downturn began, unemployment figures rose and, during that time, we had four years of Yukon Party government.
No matter about all the rhetoric brought to the floor of this Legislature by the Member for Klondike; they did absolutely nothing - nothing. Well, I can tell you something right now. The Member for Riverdale North says the NDP did nothing and I'll tell you even though the failure of the Watson Lake sawmill was an issue, they at least tried to do something.
Besides, the mayor and council of the day were screaming for investment in that sawmill. The NDP government of the day was listening and they made an attempt. Unfortunately, market conditions, coupled with equipment that did not suit stand profile resulted in failure. And those are lessons well-learned, Mr. Speaker.
Also, during the time of the Yukon Party tenure, we managed to get a brand new liquor store in Watson Lake. Wasn't that wonderful? And, as they talked this afternoon about all the things we can do with capital dollars to help the unemployment in the community of Watson Lake, the liquor store was built not by a contractor in Watson Lake - not at all - it was built by a contractor from out of the community.
So that's the Yukon Party's approach to capital spending in the community.
Secondly, let's look for a moment at this year's capital budget, and when you look at the main estimates, it's very clear that the Watson Lake constituency has received over $6 million in capital dollars. Now, it's true $5 million of that is going into highway projects on the Alaska Highway and on the south Campbell Highway. But, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any clear priorities in the community, in the absence of design and projects sitting on the shelf awaiting capital expenditures, those monies were directed toward the highway.
And this government, Mr. Speaker, will wait for that community to decide collectively what they want to see done as far as their administration building, as far as library, as far as other capital projects are concerned.
We will let the people of Watson Lake participate in the decisions that affect them.
Now, the Yukon Party goes on and on and on about rural Yukon and capital expenditures and all those wonderful things. Let's look at some more facts, Mr. Speaker. These are percentages.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Fentie: That's right. There weren't many facts coming out of the Member for Klondike at all.
Now, if we look at the percentage of capital monies spent in the Yukon and consider how that reflects with Whitehorse and the total dollars spent, in 1995-96, which was a year of the Yukon Party government, 10.25 percent of capital dollars were directed to rural Yukon. In the 1996-97 budget - the last budget of the Yukon Party - 11.91 percent was directed to rural Yukon.
Now, let's look at the 1997-98 capital expenditures of this government. The percentage of capital expenditures in rural Yukon has risen from 11.9 percent to 23.32 percent. That's hardly ignoring rural Yukon. To go on to the 1998-99 capital budget, we have increased that to 28.13 percent.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Fentie: The member from Riverdale says, "Forget about this, that and the other thing." I'm saying that the facts are that we have dramatically increased capital expenditures in rural Yukon. And why? Because we, on this side of the House, care about people.
Now, the members opposite continually make the point that I, the Member for Watson Lake, am right-wing.
While that may be true, I can tell you that I care about my people, and we are going to do everything we can to improve their living -
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Fentie: Well, let's look at some more facts, Mr. Speaker. Having been involved in the economy of Watson Lake for decades, I know exactly what's going on today. This is a seasonal spike that has put a dramatic increase into unemployment. However, we are about to get into the tourist season. Jobs will increase. The emulsion mixture and haul is going to begin within a month. Jobs will increase.
We have over $100,000 of CDF funding being spent in Watson Lake today. Jobs. Those are real jobs for real people in my community - not to mention every community in this territory.
We also have, outside of the highway expenditures in my community, a number of other capital dollars: Education, for improvements and landscaping, $30,000; communications equipment, capital expenditures, $2,000: Watson Lake industrial area, capital expenditure, $400,000 - that one expenditure alone is higher than the 1995-96 capital estimates for Watson Lake of the former Yukon Party government - higher by $70,000; Tourism upgrades, $20,000; Renewable Resources campground facilities expenditures are another $20,000; Coal River springs is another $15,000;
The Watson Lake hospital - the Member for Klondike went on and on and on about the need for medical facilities in Watson Lake; I tell you, we are lucky to have the hospital we do, and I'm proud of that fact - another $100,000.
Also, in Yukon Housing there is another $30,000. What we have here are the members opposite saying we are doing nothing in rural Yukon - nothing in Watson Lake. For the record, Mr. Speaker, that is patently false.
Let's understand something else about economy for this territory and the need to turn from government expenditures into diversifying our economy. This budget, Mr. Speaker, charts the course for that to happen. This budget begins that process. In expenditures in such things as the trade and investment diversification strategy we are, through intelligent, thoughtful work, expanding and broadening our borders.
Through such initiatives as immigrant investment, through oil and gas legislation and the potential that we will derive from our oil and gas fields in the southeast Yukon and, for that matter, anywhere else where they may be, such as Northern Cross' operation: these are all earmarked to create sustainable long-term jobs in this territory - not the continuous boom-and-bust cycle.
We've also gone and established relations outside this territory with such countries as Taiwan and Japan - again, earmarked for broadening our borders.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let's consider another fact: the seniors of Watson Lake. Now, the Member for Klondike again went on at great length about the health needs, about the ability to create jobs through the construction of a facility, and I want to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker. That very issue was there in Watson Lake, in that community, for four long years of Yukon Party neglect.
They did not even see their way clear to give that society enough dollars to implement a home care program. They gave them chicken feed, Mr. Speaker - nothing. We have taken a completely different approach.
Now, let's consider something else for the moment. When we talk about providing extended care, it's more than a building, Mr. Speaker. It's an ability to provide that care and the need to have that professional quality of person available. I can tell you that, for months, the clinic in Watson Lake has been trying to get another doctor to come to rural Yukon and has not been able to do so. Also, if the Yukon Party members ever take the time to check in on the news, they will see that all across this country in rural Canada, the ability to get and attract medical professionals is a real big problem. So, don't start misleading the people in Watson Lake, or this territory, through some political grandstanding about building facilities. There's a lot more to it, and it takes some thought.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there was some comment from the opposite side of the House about the main estimates and our comparisons, and they discussed apples and oranges and all the rest of it. But I can tell you, every figure that has been put into the public from myself and this side of the House is directly out of the main estimates. They've also made mention, over and over again, that the highway expenditures - the capital dollars going into the Alaska Highway and the Campbell Highway - are not capital expenditures for Watson Lake. But, if you look closely, it's been stated that those dollars are capital expenditures in the constituency of Watson Lake.
Those are facts, Mr. Speaker. So, the comparison the Yukon Party is making does not hold water.
Now, we want to look at the fire that the community had two years ago and the constant comments from the Yukon Party about the administration building. I can tell them we have not panicked. There is no knee-jerk reaction from this side of the House.
We are allowing that community to decide what they want and I can you right now, Mr. Speaker, that there have been considerable requests to move slowly, move thoughtfully and plan this. When the expenditures are made, it must be what that community desires and that's exactly what we're doing, and there's no doubt in my mind that in the very near future there will be further dollars spent in those areas.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that in rural Yukon there is a definite need for job creation, and one of the logical approaches to job creation in this territory today, given the downturn in the mining industry, is the development of a sustainable forest economy. And that must be done through a comprehensive forest management plan.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Fentie: Well, there we go, the Member for Klondike, with another hilarious comment. I want to remind him that in June the Yukon Territory will be 100 years old, and for 98 and a half years, Mr. Speaker, we had access to forests in this territory in the absence of a forest management plan.
In 18 short months, we have come a long way in improving that situation, Mr. Speaker, and we have come a long way toward developing a sustainable forest economy. That will be an economy that does not add to the boom-and-bust cycles but adds to stable, sustainable job creation for this territory.
You know, I think back to the former Yukon Party government and comments made by their leader, and today we have a motion by that party that is meant to champion rural Yukon. The former Government Leader said publicly that there are communities in this territory that will not survive. Is that a champion of rural Yukon? That was the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.
Secondly, the Yukon Party talks all about jobs, all about the economy, all about those wonderful things. It even makes mention that we need to change, and I ask what did the Yukon Party do in that regard for four long years?
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Fentie: Seven percent unemployment does not enter into this fact. You did not do anything but spend government funds. You did not do anything to plan, to change and diversify our economy, and we are doing that and this budget and these capital expenditures are charting the course for that very fact.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Mr. Fentie: Well, now we have to go back a decade, I guess, to help the Member for Riverdale North.
However, I want to make sure that I leave some time for my colleagues to have at this, because it's a goodie, and Mr. Speaker, I do not support this motion one bit.
Thank you.
Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Town of Watson Lake is an economically depressed area. The unemployment rate in Watson Lake, like in most rural areas, is unacceptably high, and unless there is a significant project coming up in Watson Lake from either the public or the private sector then this area will continue to be depressed economically. This is an area of chronic unemployment.
The issue today is whether or not to send in capital dollars to Watson Lake to solve this issue of a poor economy and high unemployment in Watson Lake. Now, the MLA for this area claims that his government is spending $5.9 million in capital in Watson Lake, and the town disagrees. The Town of Watson Lake claims that the NDP government is only spending $218,000 in this budget cycle, because the $400,000 earmarked for industrial subdivision development is completely recoverable, and the $5.7 million allocated for the Robert Campbell Highway will not directly benefit the Town of Watson Lake unless they extend their boundaries through to Ross River and there is absolute assurances that there will be local hire.
The NDP claims that Watson Lake is receiving the largest share of capital dollars that