Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, April 29, 1998 - 1:30 p.m.

Clerk: It is my duty, pursuant to the provisions of section 24 of the Legislative Assembly Act, to inform the Legislative Assembly of the absence of the Speaker. In his absence, the Deputy Speaker shall take the Chair.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Deputy Speaker: Under tabling returns and documents, I have for tabling the annual report of the Yukon ombudsman information and privacy commissioner for the period from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997.

Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I have for tabling the independent auditor's report on a contribution agreement between the Department of Renewable Resources and the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, which did not find evidence to support the allegations of misappropriation of funds. Attached to the package are the terms of reference for the audit and the department's response to the auditor's recommendation.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Today I have for tabling the Municipal Act review.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I have for tabling the mobile home handbook.

Deputy Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mobile home strategy: Range Road East development project

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I rise to update the House on a major development under our government's mobile home strategy. This is part of our government's policy of assuring Yukon families access to affordable housing.

All members will recall from my ministerial statement last May that the mobile home strategy identified four problem areas that face owners and residents of more than 1,200 mobile homes in the Yukon: land, financing, regulation, and public information.

On the topic of land, I'm pleased to announce that on Monday of this week the City of Whitehorse council gave final reading on a zoning bylaw amendment that established appropriate zoning for the future site of Yukon Housing Corporation's Range Road East mobile home development.

This project was announced in the budget speech at the beginning of this sitting and will produce 69 mobile home lots to be sold as strata-titled lots.

The lots have been developed using alternative design standards. This includes the clustered layout that allows for several cluster groups of 11 to 15 lots each. This design concept has significant advantages. Besides providing more open space and privacy between clusters, it allows for lower development costs for water, sewer and roads.

We will also help reduce maintenance costs by putting water and sewer services under parking lots and driveways. These savings will be passed on to the mobile home lot owners.

While we are confident that these lots will be more affordable than the conventional lots, we are not prepared to establish unrealistic expectation by announcing a price at this time. Price information will be available at a public information meeting at the Mt. McIntyre Centre on Wednesday, May 27, at 7:30 p.m.

Using the condominium structure for the Range Road development provides options to improve the quality of life for mobile home owners. The design allows for maximum protection of adjacent green spaces with small tot parks included within each cluster unit and two powered parking spots per lot.

A series of walkways and trails will run between the parking lots and mobile home lots. In addition, well-vegetated and scenic trails will link up with the long-established trails network along the bank and down to the Yukon River. A compound is also provided to secure storage for recreational vehicles.

Finally, this project provides a workable option for owners of older mobile homes who find themselves in a non-secure rental situation because of a municipal bylaw restricting the relocation of older mobile homes. As a strata title development, this project is exempt from that bylaw. This will allow owners of older units to retrieve their equity and move it to a new lot.

The Yukon Housing Corporation has developed a set of architectural standards to identify necessary upgrades to older units. Besides establishing a safe and healthy building standard within the development, it will help protect property value. These standards will be available to the general public at the upcoming open house for mobile home owners.

The corporation will continue to deliver the program that will help owners meet those standards to relocate their units. Financing to help people take this step toward the ownership is available through the existing Yukon Housing Corporation programs.

Having achieved an important milestone with the rezoning, we will be proceeding with the subdivision and development of the property. Construction is scheduled to begin in early June with lots available for sale by this fall.

I would also like to take this opportunity to bring members' attention to the information handbook of mobile home owners, which my colleague, the Minister of Justice, tabled just a few moments ago. This booklet provides information on the Landlord and Tenant Act and will assist home owners in the event of a dispute. This government believes strongly that individuals should have access and knowledge of the laws that govern them. This user-friendly handbook will help mobile home owners understand their rights better.

Mr. Speaker, the Range Road East development recognizes the value of home ownership and moves us one big step closer to meeting the goal of ensuring Yukon people have access to affordable housing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins: On behalf of the Yukon Party caucus and the office of the official opposition, I rise to respond to the minister's statement regarding the Range Road East development project, and I am pleased to offer our conditional support to this project.

Before I go on, I would like to raise some concerns about the time in which these ministerial statements are being delivered to the offices of the official opposition and the third party. As government members are fully aware, there is in place an agreement to present members opposite with copies of ministerial statements by a specific time.

In the course of this sitting, statements have been arriving later and later, making it difficult for members to review the contents and make a fair assessment of what is being said. As I have stated in the past, we on this side of the House would appreciate receiving ministerial statements on time, as agreed to by all parties.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as members are fully aware, mobile home owners have been faced with many challenges over the years. The biggest challenge for many mobile home owners has been that of finding themselves living in substandard housing units that they cannot afford to repair and giving them no other alternative for relocating or improving their homes.

The condominium concept for mobile home parks, where mobile home owners can own their own land and common facilities and infrastructure, was an initiative that was first proposed by the Yukon Party. While we, on this side of the House, are pleased to see the government proceed with this initiative, we do have a few concerns that perhaps the minister could address in his rebuttal.

Although the minister was not able to announce prices of lots at this time, he did say that he was confident that they will be more affordable than conventional lots. If the minister was truly confident, I believe he would have no hesitation in making the price known. As the minister is unwilling to relay this information, perhaps he could shed some light as to the cost of fees that would be charged each month for maintenance of this area - $30, $50 or $100? In what range are the proposed condominium fees or strata fees going to be?

The minister did not mention how large the lots will be. Present lots in the Copper Ridge and the Arkell subdivisions are between 560 and 600 square metres. It is my understanding that the lots being proposed for this development would be between 80 and 100 square metres smaller than the ones that exist presently in Copper Ridge and Arkell.

If this is the case, there may be a concern that the size is not adequate to hold all of the family belongings. The minister did mention that there will be a compound for storage of recreational vehicles. Many families do not have RVs. Could the compound be used for the personal storage of other goods or personal belongings?

How much space would be made available for each household in the compound? There are 69 lots. I would assume that the compound would have to be a rather large space if we're envisioning holding RVs.

Of large concern are the costs associated with the requirements to have a mobile home upgraded to meet the architectural standards that have been identified by the Yukon Housing Corporation in order to relocate to one of the lots in Range Road East. That is a very large concern indeed.

Perhaps more detail could be provided regarding such standards and if consultations were held with mobile home owners prior to the standards being adopted, as well as the anticipated cost of having these upgrades done.

At the same time, there have been some concerns raised about the possibility of depressing property values with having older mobile homes moving in. Do part of the architectural standards address exterior renovations to improve the looks of those mobile homes that may require a face lift?

As well as having to pay for renovations, which can run into many thousands of dollars, there's also the cost of having to move mobile homes from one site to this new site. Many homes have porches and/or rooms that could become uprooted when moving. Has any consideration been given to providing assistance to home owners for relocation costs?

There is also the concern of mobile home owners, such as those in Takhini Trailer Park, who will encounter difficulties in moving their homes out of the park and into the new subdivision, as a result of having narrow spaces. As the plans call for clusters of 11 to 15 lots each, I would also imagine there's need for some dynamic planning in place so as to avoid any confusion or mishap occurring. What plans are there in place to address these potential shortfalls?

Deputy Speaker: Order please. The member has 10 seconds.

Mr. Jenkins: In a recent report that surveyed mobile home owners and park owners, the findings reveal that more than 50 percent of Yukon homes are 18 years or older.

Deputy Speaker: Order please. The member's time has expired.

Mrs. Edelman: I rise today on behalf of the Yukon Liberal caucus to respond to the ministerial statement on the new mobile home strata development on Range Road.

Mr. Speaker, this initiative seems to be close to completion with the finalizing of the zoning bylaw from the City of Whitehorse. The construction schedule, starting in early June, however, seems a little optimistic, as there is still the development agreement process to complete with public hearings at the municipal level. That will have to take place in only one month and, in government time, that's almost lightning speed; t

herefore, it is unlikely that it's going to be finished in that time.

Now, fortunately, it is possible to move these mobile homes into the subdivision right through the winter months. That's certainly what happened when the Arkell subdivision opened up in Whitehorse. This is a good partnership that has produced a workable solution to a long-term problem in Whitehorse and ultimately will benefit the owners of older mobile homes.

Thank you for the update on the initiative.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members for their comments to the ministerial statement and the support for this initiative by this government. We have had a lot of consultation with the mobile home owners and it's come to government to do something with the health and safety issue that is within these mobile home parks.

We know that the June construction and having lots available in the fall is a very tight time frame and we feel that we, the Housing Corporation, can do this within this time line. We know it's tight, but working out the schedule and, everything being on schedule so far, we feel quite confident that we can meet these time lines.

The member knows, with the mobile home strategy, there are a number of things that we have proposed in regard to moving mobile homes. We talked about the relocation costs. That's part of the mobile home strategy. The member had talked about the compound and what size it would be. We have 69 lots, which was a bit of an improvement over the numbers we had thought might go in there. There should be sufficient room for each of the lots to have an area where they can store either recreational vehicles or other types of assets they might want to store there, possibly additional sheds that they might keep there, but these would all be in a locked and secured area.

They also talked about the architectural standards that the department has completed. They talked about older mobile homes being moved on to these lots and these standards would address this to make sure that all the units are up to standard in regard to their looks, basically giving them a facelift so that we would not be faced with a situation where we have older mobile homes on a strata title like this, basically putting them in a different position where older mobile homes would not be accepted.

As the member knows, strata title gives all of the mobile home owners a say in what development takes place and how they would like to see development happen within the strata title park. The Yukon Housing Corporation will be basically the owners until approximately 66 percent of the lots are sold and then they can have the association take over and become the strata title owners and they can give direction as to how they would like to see future development, and so on, and what they would like to see within these parks.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members for their comments. I believe that we have moved a long way on our commitments on this issue and we believe we can meet them and start moving people onto these lots.

I know the member was concerned about the prices of the lots and we have final numbers to work out before the May 27 meeting, and at that point, members will be up to speed as to what the prices of the lots are.

I thank the members for their comments.

Municipal Act review

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, before I start with my ministerial statement, I would like for all members of the House to recognize the president of the Association of Yukon Communities, Ms. Barb Harris, in the audience. I would also like to recognize the executive director of the Association of Yukon Communities, Larry Bagnell, and I would also like to thank all members of the Municipal Act review committee for the fine work that they have done. So, thank you very much for being here.

Applause

Hon. Mr. Keenan:

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of an important initiative that provides another example of our government's policy of involving Yukon people directly in the decisions that affect them.

For some time now, we have been working in partnership with municipalities to complete a comprehensive review of the Municipal Act. The Municipal Act review committee, which is made up of municipal and Yukon government officials, has developed a number of proposals for a new Municipal Act.

We are now asking for public views and comments on the proposals for this new act.

The Municipal Act is the statute that governs Yukon municipalities. In effect, it is their constitution. It establishes the framework for all facets of municipal government operations.

The proposals for a new act are about municipal powers and Yukon government controls over municipal activities. Yukon municipalities should have more flexibility to deal with the challenges they are facing now and will face in the future.

At present, municipalities can only carry out activities that are specifically authorized by the act, and can do so only in the way the act allows. This limits the ability of municipalities to address problems.

Before a new act can be created, however, it is important that the opinions of the Yukon community as a whole are heard and incorporated through a full consultation process.

Yukon residents will be informed of the proposed changes at community meetings throughout the Yukon Territory in May and in June. They will then have a period to make their comments and concerns known to the government.

Among the changes being proposed are provisions that would transfer some of the control the government has over municipalities directly to the public. The proposals also contain provisions for creating a variety of rural government structures and implementing changes to municipal financial systems.

A new system of checks and balances is being proposed to give residents greater ability to ensure that municipal governments conduct their affairs appropriately.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the municipal officials who have participated in the review, as well as representatives of the Association of Yukon Communities, who sat on the review committee. The strong partnership they helped form was instrumental in the creation of proposals for a new act.

Through government-to-government partnerships and consultations with Yukon people, our government continues to advance its policy of fostering healthy communities.

Thank you.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Deputy Speaker, what the minister is announcing today is a stretch for a ministerial statement. A ministerial statement is supposed to announce a new policy or initiative of the government. The Yukon Municipal Act review has been underway for over two years. I'm sure that the municipal officials and the Association of Yukon Communities are most pleased to learn that the process is continuing.

I'm also sure that this ministerial statement is timed to add a good political spin for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services' and the Government Leader's attendance at the annual general meeting of the Association of Yukon Communities in Dawson City next weekend.

For years, the Association of Yukon Communities and municipalities have been involved in the review lobbying for changes to the formula regarding municipal block funding. I'm sure most municipalities and community leaders would be more pleased to hear of an increase in block funding, which has remained static for quite a number of years.

We presume that the input of the municipalities and AYC are being well-received by this government, but now is the time to include the views of the ordinary citizens. We hope that, for a change, this government will actually listen to and act upon what is being said by the communities and by our residents at large.

Will a review be completed by this fall, and will legislation be coming forward in the fall sitting of this House? Perhaps in the minister's rebuttal, if he could respond to that question, I'd appreciate it. I look forward to the tabling of such a bill that will accurately reflect the concerns and needs of Yukoners and Yukon communities.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Yukon Liberal caucus to respond to this ministerial statement on the Municipal Act review. The Yukon Liberal caucus strongly supports this review process.

All Yukon legislation should be reviewed on a regular basis. This makes for living legislation that better serves Yukoners living in a constantly changing world.

It is my understanding that the consultation schedule for the Municipal Act has been agreed to by the members of the Association of Yukon Communities. The changes to this act are quite extensive and have taken a considerable amount of time to draft with officials from Yukon towns and cities. It is my hope that Yukoners will have sufficient time to respond to these changes. I'm also hoping that the information meeting that will be held in May and June of this year will be held prior to the closing of Yukon schools. Consultations held in the summer are not the best way to get a true indication of the views of Yukoners.

While municipal councils sit all summer, most other Yukoners have other things to do, and it's not clear from the statement what the deadline is for the finalizing of local consultation. I hope that that deadline is not until well into September.

Could the minister tell this House what consultation has gone on with Yukon First Nations? First Nations, under self-government agreements, have the ability to contract for, or deliver, municipal services, and therefore have a legitimate interest in this legislation. Has consultation occurred with CYFN or each individual First Nation?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I could absolutely accept that the Member for Klondike would attempt to put a negative political spin on this, but let me just say that the difference between this administration and the last one is that, when we start something, we finish it. And why do we do it? Because we do it for the betterment of the communities.

Now, I can sit here and name many initiatives that that government started and did not complete because they did not choose to complete them or because they lost the power or the respect of the Yukon people. Both the same. Both the same. This government is delivering and will continue to deliver.

Thank you very much.

As to the schedule, yes, we certainly will. We're out consulting with people. We're going to have this on the legislative agenda for this fall. We do realize the importance of taking it to all sectors of the community and will continue to do so. We will consult with all First Nations. We will ask for their input. We will consult with the tribal councils, we will consult with the Council for Yukon First Nations, and we will legislate in conjunction with our partners in the community.

So, I thank the members very much for their positiveness. I'd like to also say that this is not a stretch of a ministerial statement - maybe for the others because they never went out, but this government goes out, consults with people, and therein that is new for people in the Yukon, certainly not in the past few years but in a previous four.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Alcohol and drug abuse in Yukon

Mr. Jenkins: My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services on alcohol and drug treatment in Yukon.

The minister's track record in dealing with Yukon's number one social problem, alcohol and drug abuse, is dismal. The judiciary has recently criticized this government for not tackling the territory's serious teen drinking problem. The minister has earned everlasting notoriety for cancelling the 26-year-old Crossroads treatment centre program because he deemed it not culturally sensitive to First Nations clients.

In the minister's response to the Crossroads petition - which he ignored - the minister stated, "This new system also allows to us empower Yukon First Nations in their own healing programs. Some of the money will be available for per diems for treatment centres in communities, and I have to say that I'm pleased to say that the Aishihik treatment centre is now in operation and we have begun to develop a relationship with the centre."

Now we hear from the Aishihik -

Deputy Speaker: Order please. Would the member please get to the question.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Now we hear from the Aishihik treatment centre that this government is listening to neither of them. What is going on? Why did this organization have to go public before the minister would respond?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that stirring speech by the Member for Klondike. I have to tell the member that he is wrong. We have been meeting with Aishihik. My officials met with them a couple of weeks ago. We looked at the program. We had some questions. We had some further discussions. We conveyed to them - as a matter of fact we are conveying today - that we are interested in working with them in terms of financing and we've made it clear all along that we're committed to supporting provision of more treatment options. I suppose, in this case, I'm a bit surprised. We spoke as late as yesterday and let them know that there was an imminent decision so perhaps it was just a communication problem, but we have been working on a very steady basis with Aishihik.

Mr. Jenkins: Here we have a government that prides itself in communicating with the people and the minister has just stood on his feet and he says he's interested in working with them. Well, the minister has taken some $450,000 away from Crossroads, but despite all the fine words about empowering Yukon First Nations in their own healing programs, here we now have a First Nation representative saying the government is just paying lip service, has a hard time remembering the promises that were made even though they were made just a short time ago. What has the minister done with all the Crossroads money?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Yes, that's right. We didn't use it to build roads.

I can tell the member that if perhaps he would even cast his mind back just a couple of days to the Health and Social Services budget, he will see that we did commit money for alcohol and drug treatment. We have also, within that budget, allocated $100,000 that we were prepared to direct toward support for community healing programs, and, in this case, I can only speculate that perhaps some of the individuals weren't aware of the progress that we were making.

As I said, I have met on at least two occasions with this group. We have been in ongoing contact. We have met with them. We have reviewed their program. I took a look at it. My officials took a look at it. We have some questions. We had some issues around wanting to get some further clarification. There was a trip planned today, I believe, with our director of ADS out to Aishihik, but due to some difficulties with transportation, he was not able to go with the individuals.

I can merely say that we've always committed to working with this group, and we have made a formal offer today.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, apparently the Aishihik alcohol treatment centre is still about $54,000 short of covering the costs for the 18 clients enrolled in its 40-day adult program. Can the minister advise the House what agreement he has with this treatment centre, and will the Yukon government be making up this $54,000 shortfall?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: As we are in communication with the Aishihik treatment centre, I think our communications are probably more appropriately directed toward them and not the Member for Klondike. But I can tell the member that we've made a very substantial -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: The leader of the official opposition says, "open and accountable." I would suggest that yes, open and accountable, but also open and courteous. We don't go behind people's backs.

What we've done is commit to a very sizeable proportion of the amount that they were seeking.

Question re: Alcohol and drug abuse in Yukon

Mr. Jenkins: Again, no answers from the minister. Once again, I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services about Yukon's number one social problem: alcohol and drug abuse. I didn't think it was possible, but the minister has managed to make everyone very upset with him. I guess it's because of his incompetence in dealing with this most serious problem.

The judiciary is mad at him for his callous disregard for teen alcoholism. Non-native Yukoners are mad at him for cancelling a 26-year old program that has at least worked for some of them. Now the Yukon First Nations feel betrayed, because they have discovered the minister is full of fancy words and promises, but he's very short on delivery.

In view of the minister's cancellation of the $450,000 contract with the Crossroads treatment centre, can the minister advise the House here today how many Yukon First Nations community healing camps is the minister prepared to fund with the Crossroads money, or is he just going to keep the money in his pocket?

Something has to be done. What is the minister doing in this area?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: It's always difficult, Mr. Speaker, to understand when the Member for Klondike has finished his reading for the day. He has a marked inability to think on his feet, so he's continually scripted there. Maybe we should ask their research assistant to make the questions shorter and in big print.

What I can suggest is that perhaps the member didn't hear me. I had suggested we were prepared to make a sizeable contribution to Aishihik. At this point, Aishihik has come forward. We've had some discussions with other community treatment centres. Some are at different stages. Some are looking at different kinds of programs.

What we'll do is we'll work with the individual First Nation and see what their program is, what they're suggesting, if indeed it meets our needs, if indeed there are components we can use. The member's asking me to make a blanket statement, and I can't do that.

Mr. Jenkins: Perhaps the minister should get some scripting, so that we can get some answers. The Aishihik alcohol treatment centre currently has 18 clients. It's supposed to begin its treatment program this Sunday.

When I asked the question on April 7 in this House about the per diem rates the Yukon government was prepared to pay and how many beds the Yukon government was prepared to fund, the minister said that everything was very, very preliminary and that he wouldn't give a commitment. Now, he indicates in the House that they're prepared to offer substantial funding - no amounts though.

Did the minister respond today to keep the Aishihik First Nations' treatment centre officials quiet until this House rises? Is that the reason why a response was made today?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: No. We communicated, as late as yesterday, that a decision on that was imminent. I had asked my officials, last week, to give us some options on ways that we could be working with the Aishihik treatment centre. I had arranged to meet with them this morning to take a look at the kinds of presentations that they were prepared to make, and to choose the options that we felt were most meaningful for us. That was already done.

Perhaps the member has missed this point. We have been working with this group. We met with them a couple of weeks ago. They presented their options. We have been discussing with them. I might need to repeat it over and over again, because it's not in his big book, but we have been working with this group.

Now, would he like to read his next question?

Mr. Jenkins: Per diem costs, or total contract amounts for healing centres, other than the two youth wilderness camps in Mayo and Old Crow, have combined costs that are over $350,000 for 25 clients. This is a substantial amount. Even using the minister's socialist calculator, one can readily see that Crossroad's $450,000 funding could be utilized in one First Nations healing camp alone.

How is the minister going to meet his commitment to fund First Nations healing camps throughout the Yukon Territory? I'd also like to hear what he intends to do to combat teen alcoholism and drug abuse as well as to help the numerous alcohol and drug addicts who do not fit into a First Nations healing camp.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I think if there's ever a gallery of wooden statues, that member should be in it, because I've never heard such wooden, scripted questions in my life.

The member has suggested we would be funding all First Nations camps to a full extent. I have never made that suggestion. I have never suggested we would fund all First Nations healing camps fully. I have never suggested that we had that capability. Quite frankly, we don't have that capability.

And I think it also needs to be recognized that First Nation healing camps are, by their very nature, a function as well of the non-insured programs of the Department of Indian Affairs and Health Canada. What we have said is that we are willing to partner with our First Nation citizens in trying to assist in this regard. I have given out an amount that we have available in this regard. That's the amount that I've spoken about, that's the amount that I've repeated. Now, the member may be trying to box us in with that deft -

Deputy Speaker: Order please. Would the member please conclude?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: - but I have to tell him that we have never suggested this at all.

Question re: Workers' Compensation Board, witnesses appear before the House

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation, Health and Safety Board.

Now, the minister has been asked repeatedly to have the representatives of the Workers' Compensation Board appear as witnesses before the Legislature. Each time, he said, "No, the opposition has to reaffirm its commitment to a 35-day session first."

Now, he said, in effect, that he's going to hold up to ransom the injured workers' right to have their elected representatives question the board on issues of interest to them.

We in the opposition have gone halfway. We have said we are prepared to sit Tuesday or Thursday nights to accommodate the government so we don't affect the schedule. Could the minister tell the House why he's being so obstinate? Why is he holding up injured workers to ransom?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Such high rhetoric in such a confrontational approach from the Liberal caucus: that's not what they promised Yukoners in the last election. I'm shocked and appalled.

First of all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me just say that high rhetoric of holding injured workers for ransom is completely not the case. It's high rhetoric that's really unworthy of paying it much respect, but I must say that I've constantly offered briefings to the opposition colleagues by members of the board, by the administration of the board, so that they can ask the board all the questions that they might wish to ask them about the administration and the delivery of services to injured workers and the delivery of programs for the Workers' Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker, I also went so far as to say to the opposition that if there is time left over on Thursday, in the 35-day sitting, that I'd be prepared to ask the boards to come forward. However, the opposition has not been budgeting their time well. They've spent countless hours - days, actually - asking how many bags of larvicide it takes to kill a mosquito and how many grader blades there are in Old Crow, and all kinds of questions like that - what colour the Jello should be - and all of these kinds of incredible policy questions.

I have gone the distance to try and accommodate...

Deputy Speaker: Order please. Could the member please conclude.

Hon. Mr. Harding: And if the members want to conclude tonight, I'll try and get the board in tomorrow.

Mr. Cable: Well, this is a friendly, non-confrontational question.

During the last election, the NDP put out a document called, You Be the Judge. Under the heading, No Accountability, it says, "Guess who refused to bring Crown corporations up for questioning at budget time?"

Could the minister tell us whether the answer to the question is the NDP and whether the point that he and his buddies were making - that Crown corporations should appear before the House - extends to the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, the point that the member makes is fundamentally flawed. I said that if the opposition can finish the budget by tonight, then we'll bring the board in tomorrow. Now, their challenge is to budget their time in the 35-day budget session. I've also made a public commitment to briefings for the opposition members with the Workers' Compensation Board. I've also made a commitment that we would do everything in our power to bring the boards forward in the fall session.

So, I really don't know if the member has a concrete point to make. It's fundamentally flawed on the basis that I even said that in session, if there's extra time left over, we'd be more than prepared to ask the board to come forward.

Mr. Cable: The fundamental point I'm making is that there is no linkage, in case it's escaped the minister's attention.

Now, in view of how the NDP was making an issue out of appearances by the government bodies before this Legislature during the last election campaign, and just to avoid having someone on this side - some churl on this side - accuse the government of flip-flopping again, could the minister give this House his commitment to have both the Workers' Compensation Board and the Yukon Energy Corporation appear before this House during the next session?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, the member has been taking lessons on reading questions from the Member for Klondike, because I just answered that question.

Mr. Speaker, I already said that the members can talk to these boards tomorrow if I can arrange it. I told the member opposite that if they finish their budget in the legislative session, in this House tomorrow, on the 35th day and if there was time left over, I said, "By all means, we can do it this session." If not, I will try my best to get the boards to concur to come before the House to answer questions publicly.

In the last legislative session, I brought the Yukon Energy Corporation forward. I've offered countless briefings that the members opposite have had. All those issues that were raised in those briefings come up sometime on the floor of this Legislature in a publicly accountable manner.

So, I don't know what the member's point is. I have made every effort possible on behalf of this government to bring them forward; however, the opposition has not budgeted their time appropriately. They've wasted far too much in this legislative session.

Question re: Air Transat

Ms. Duncan: My question's for the Minister of Tourism regarding the Air Transat charter flights to Whitehorse this summer. The minister had hand delivered to me yesterday afternoon a letter with some information regarding the Air Transat flight and some of the questions I had asked, and I thank him and his officials for providing that information.

The minister's letter does not state that, for the first five Air Transat flights, a special fare is being offered, where passengers get off the plane in Vancouver, rent a Rocky Mountain RV, drive through B.C. to the Yukon, and fly home. I have confirmation that the fare exists. Is the minister aware of this special Rocky Mountain fare?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: No, I am not aware of the fare.

Ms. Duncan: Partnerships within the tourism industry work well, and we all prosper when Bill operates the taxi service, Bob owns the store and Barney operates the tour company, as the minister is well aware. I'm not opposed to the Air Transat flights and industry partnerships. However, I am interested in a level playing field and ensuring Yukoners and Yukon businesses are given fair opportunity.

Can the minister tell this House if Air Transat worked with any Yukon RV companies in offering special fares to bring these RVs to the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that, because certainly the department's obligation, and certainly what the department has done, was to procure a charter airline to bring tourists from overseas to the Yukon Territory. Therein lies the obligation that we have brought forth and we've quite successfully brought to the Yukon.

That is the length of my obligation.

Ms. Duncan: Well, as the minister has just pointed out, the Air Transat flights have been highlighted as a benefit to Yukon and to Yukon's tourism industry and Yukoners. The way the deal has been structured, we're doing all the work, spending all the money, and B.C. is going to be reaping the benefits.

Can the minister tell this House how visitors driving a rented RV through B.C. to arrive in the Yukon in time to fly home is going to benefit Yukon's tourism industry?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Well, I will just repeat once more, Mr. Deputy Chair, that the obligation of the Yukon Tourism department is to bring folks or to market folks in conjunction, in partnerships with people within to bring folks here. That is exactly what we have done. We have brought and fostered an arena to bring people to the Yukon Territory.

Question re: Dawson City dental services

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question once again for the Minister of Health and Social Services on one of our long-standing issues in Dawson with his department, that of the provision of dental services.

Dawson City, over the years, have been fortunate in having a full-time resident dentist. That is, until this government stepped in.

This NDP government cancelled the arrangement whereby the dentist utilized office space and equipment in the nursing station and relocated the dentist's office to the government's administration building on Front Street. The net result was that the local resident dentist, Dr. Helmut Schoener, withdrew his services - retired.

In stages, this government retrofitted the office, provided it with dental equipment and concluded a contract with Yukon dental services to provide dentists in Dawson on a rotational basis six times a year for two weeks at a time. When Dr. Schoener returned -

Deputy Speaker: Order please. Would the member please get to the question.

Mr. Jenkins: When Dr. Schoener offered to provide a regular service, using this office, which would result in a much higher level of service at a saving and costs of some $30,000 -

Deputy Speaker: Order please. The member has not got to the question, as requested by the Chair. I would now ask the member to take his seat and we will go on to a new question.

Question re: School busing, kindergarten

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education, and it concerns the suggestion that noon-hour busing for kindergarten be cut next year.

The NDP were going ahead with this decision until they were told by school councils, members of the busing committee and in this Legislature that people didn't want this service cut. At a meeting last Friday, the department received the message loud and clear that school councils wanted this decision deferred for at least a year to allow for community input.

The minister, in a letter to me on Friday, said, "I will keep the Legislative Assembly apprised of the final decision made."

Will the minister, today, confirm that she has reversed her earlier decision and that noon-hour busing for kindergarten students will be in place for the coming school year?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, first of all I have to say to the member that her preamble is entirely wrong. As the member knows, we sent out a letter to principals and school chairs seeking their input on the subject of kindergarten busing. It's important to us to listen carefully to the people we consult, and that is what we have done. We have agreed to provide additional time for the consultation process for kindergarten busing.

Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the minister has said that my preamble was somehow incorrect. Well, there's the fact that there was a meeting last Friday. The fact is that the message from school council chairs, school council members, members of the busing committee, was loud and clear. It was the advice from those around the table to defer such a decision for at least a year in order to allow more community input. The minister has said she'll allow that time. She hasn't said whether or not the busing service will be in place for next year.

Parents are getting ready to register their kids for the coming year. Will noon-hour busing be available or not?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, the member was incorrect in her preamble and, since she doesn't know what was incorrect, I'll repeat it for her so that she understands.

The member opposite stood there and made the allegation that we had made a decision, when we had not made a decision in advance. This government invited the input from the principals and school council chairs. People like the dialogue that is occurring and we will continue to seek input from school council chairs and principals and others on making the decisions that we do.

Now, I have already told the member that we are postponing any decision on the kindergarten busing, and the kindergarten busing will remain in place.

Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the message that was delivered at last Friday's meeting of the school council chairs and busing representatives was very clear. If the department is to save money, it should not be at the expense of children and classroom programming. The minister has relented and has allowed busing to stay in place for this year. What about next year? Is the minister prepared to find other options for saving this money?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I've said to the member, it is important to us to listen carefully to the people we consult. That is what we have done and that is what we will continue to do. People understand and school council chairs understand that we have to live within our means. The public accepts that this government will deliver on its pay-as-you-go commitment. We need to make decisions on where to spend our education dollars most effectively and we will continue to invite the input from school councils on how to make those decisions. The formal school education system is our primary responsibility and we will continue to listen to the input from the education community as we make decisions.

Question re: Dawson City dental services

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services on the provision of dental services in Dawson City. Dawson has been fortunate in having a full-time resident dentist; that is, until this NDP government stepped in and cancelled the arrangement whereby the dentist utilized office space and equipment in the nursing station, relocated the office to the Front Street administration building and contracted out this service to the Yukon dental service on a rotational basis that now cost the government some $30,000 a year, plus we do not have a full-time resident dentist in Dawson because he has quit. He's offered to return. He'd like the same facilities.

What is the reason for this foolishness by the minister? He's now looking at relocating all the equipment there to Old Crow.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I think we covered this fairly adequately within the Health and Social Services debate. We required the space at the clinic. Dr. Schoener had been there for some 18 years. We felt that we could offer him a space in one of the downtown buildings. We undertook to renovate that space. He chose instead to depart.

We entered into a contract to provide dental services to the community of Dawson. However, it is now apparent that Dr. Schoener is returning, as I understand, with all his equipment except one piece. The equipment that we had in Dawson was on loan from our children's dental program. We are moving that on to Old Crow, and that's part of our circulating stock.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, for 18 years Dr. Schoener provided dental services in Dawson, and he resigned because this government changed the terms and conditions significantly under which he was operating. They withdrew a lot of the facilities and a lot of the support services. The practice couldn't support it the way the government envisioned it, yet they went on to pay for somebody else to come to Dawson.

Now we're looking at all the equipment being moved to Old Crow. Why is the government paying $30,000 for an inferior dental service when it can have a full-time service?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, for such a champion of free enterprise, I'm surprised that the Member for Klondike wants such preferential treatment for a friend of his. We have two other dentists in rural Yukon who seem to be operating without any sort of special or preferential treatment.

Our discussions with the Mayor of Dawson have suggested that that is consistent. What we have been asked for is the provision of a piece of equipment, and we're looking at what kinds of options we have there on some kind of a loan or lease basis.

But I would say that Dr. Schoener has been treated extraordinarily well. We've provided him an office rent-free.

Mr. Jenkins: The same office is provided rent-free to the rotating dentist, and their accommodation and their travel costs are paid by this government as well. By providing the office space to Dr. Schoener, we could have the full-time resident dentist providing a better service and saving this government some $30,000 a year. Dawson City is fed up with this situation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The city is prepared to provide all of the equipment and space, and to remove the Department of Health and Social Services from facilities presently owned by that city that were used in exchange. All the city is looking for and the dentist is looking for is an x-ray machine.

Now, will the minister agree to provide an x-ray machine?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: We're not in the position to provide free equipment for either physicians or dentists. That's not part of our provision, but we have provided equipment there, in an agreement with the Yukon Dental Association, for itinerant dentists, people that travel. Quite obviously, they can't take all of their equipment. In a similar vein, we have equipment that travels with our children's dental program.

We have been made aware that the dentist there requires a piece of equipment. We are looking into that to see if there is some kind of lease or loan provision that we could provide there, but I would say that Dr. Schoener has been treated eminently well by the department, and I would suggest that we have gone a substantial distance to try to accommodate the community of Dawson. From what I understand, it was a fairly amicable relationship until just very recently, and this appears to be over one piece of equipment and the member's inclination to give his friends a special deal.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Motion No. 105, standing in the name of Mr. Hardy.

Motion No. 105

Deputy Speaker: It is moved by the Member for Whitehorse Centre

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) people in the Yukon may be subject to discrimination based on source of income when seeking accommodation, applying for work, using a public facility or receiving or requesting a public service; and

(2) denial of equal treatment based on source of income should be considered a violation of basic human rights;

THAT this House recognizes that, at present, source of income is not included as a prohibited ground of discrimination within the Yukon Human Rights Act; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to introduce legislation which would amend the Yukon Human Rights Act to provide protection from discrimination based on source of income.

Mr. Hardy: I can't wait to speak to the crowds in the Legislature about this issue. It's a very, very serious issue, though.

Before I start, I'd like to tell a couple of stories here, just to illustrate what this motion's about - a couple of scenarios here. What I'd like to point out is how it crosses ideological lines, and I think it's important that we recognize this.

It's about source of income and truly it is a motion that is for the poor and people that are genuinely in poverty. It also goes beyond that, as well, and can apply to all types of people being acted against because of their source of income.

But first, the story is in Tibet. It's a story that Palden Gyatso tells in his book, Fire Under the Snow. He talks about his family. First off, Gyatso is a monk, but he talks about his family, where he came from. They were considered more wealthy in the village. He talks about where their wealth came from, how they worked, how they interacted with the village and the people and how he grew up. Things changed. And, because of where the family's wealth came from, they lost everything because of their position in society. They lost their home and they lost their livelihood. They lost their livestock and the lands they farmed. They were reduced to begging, in most cases. If any jobs came along, they were generally at the bottom of the list to get them, because they were from what would be considered the privileged class. They would always be marked that way, because of where their money came from.

I have two other stories to tell. Both of them come from, I believe, this book that was handed out, which I received. I believe it was also given to the opposition members from the Yukon Human Rights Commission. Heather MacFadgen made it available, I am sure, to all - to opposition as well as this side of the House and me. There are some stories in here and the two stories I would like to add to this one - which is in the opposite direction - is by a senator, the hon. Erminie J. Cohen. I'm going to read it.

"Cathy is a young, stay-at-home mother of two.

"She and her husband owned a small home and paid a modest mortgage. One day her husband lost his job. After weeks of searching to no avail and after draining all other resources, this family was forced onto social assistance. The social worker determined that their monthly mortgage was far less than what they would pay in the private market for an apartment.

"There was also a two-year waiting list for public housing. She determined that the most efficient practical solution was to allow this family to continue with their mortgage. Several weeks later, the father found a part-time job. While he was looking for full-time work, the family received a top-up benefit from social services and their mortgage continued to be paid.

"Several months passed and the time came to renew their mortgage. Much to their astonishment, the application for renewal was denied. The reason: they were social assistant recipients. No consideration was given to the fact that, through thick and thin, they, without fail, had managed to meet their monthly mortgage payments."

No consideration was given to their excellent credit rating. No consideration was given to the fact that social services were prepared to help pay housing costs for as long as it took to get this family back on its feet. In fact, no consideration was given to their personal circumstances at all. They were quite simply denied on one criteria: they received social assistance.

Consequently, the family was required to sell its home and move into a two-bedroom apartment. This apartment cost them a couple of hundred dollars more per month than their previous mortgage. The children lost their bedrooms and their backyard. The equity they had built up in their house just covered the selling cost. They had to move to an urban centre to find accommodation, so the children had to change schools. The father spent almost all that he made commuting to work - the work that he was able to find.

There is another system that basically denied a family through the whole spectrum as they struggled to try to get back on their feet. Once the father lost his job then, consequently, their place in society, they were forced down, down, down.

Another example, say, for instance, a family who lives in a major urban centre and cannot find housing because landlords do not want to rent to welfare recipients.

This is common; it's not uncommon. For a time, a homeless family can take refuge in a shelter while looking for a permanent home, but there is a limit on the time that they can stay there. If they have not found a place by the end of that time, they are forced to take a hotel room at a much higher monthly cost than an apartment. The entire welfare cheque is used to cover housing costs, and the family's forced to line up every day at soup kitchens and food banks.

While families are suffering this kind of misery, it is impossible for the parents to have the time and resources necessary to look for full employment. Then, on top of that, in this other system, you add the research that's recently been done by anti-poverty groups, which shows that the poor are increasingly discriminated against in utility companies' policies. Phone, gas, hydro and oil companies have now developed two streams of service policy. Customers who score well on income and credit tests are supplied immediate and courteous services.

For those without employment income, the situation is much different. People in these categories are considered high risk, even if they have good payment histories, and must either pay for services in advance, submit to enormous deposits or, as a result of these barriers, forego services altogether.

So there is the other system.

What are they? Well, the first one most people would recognize as the Chinese communist ideology. They attacked the wealthy, they went after the human rights of people in Tibet, and many people know the atrocities that were committed there, and are still being committed.

On the other side, we have the capitalist ideologue, and they attack the poor. They belittle, reduce and destroy any hope that the poor may have.

This motion, since we do live in a capitalist structure - semi-capitalist, some people think; other people want to call it all kinds of other names, but most people recognize it's a capitalist structure - this motion really is directed toward that. Because in this country, it is the people who are poor and who live in poverty who are most affected by source of income when they go to get services and places to live.

Our act in the Yukon offers no protection against discrimination based on source of income or social condition or poverty, and this motion calls for an amendment to the Yukon Human Rights Act. It's about poverty in Canada and in our territory, and about recognition of poverty as a serious human rights issue.

Now, I know that many people grew up in a climate which perpetuates the myth that the poor are solely responsible for their condition, and some sort of moral deficit or deficiency on their part is to blame. This leads to fear and resentment among some Canadians, fear that an inherently unworthy and potentially troublesome group of people will be granted special protection and privilege, which they will undoubtedly abuse and resentment of this will somehow be done at the expense of hard working, respectable people, whose own rights will be somehow compromised in this process. These attitudes become more prevalent during difficult economic times, which, in many cases, we are facing and have been facing over the last few years.

We've witnessed this growth of social division, poor-bashing, and stigmatizing of the disadvantaged in recent times. Sentiment against the poor has increased as the federal government and right-wing provincial governments have sought to pay down their debts and deficits on the backs of the poor, slashing or eliminating health and social programs as though social spending was the cause of our economic woes.

If we turn opinion against the poor, if we blame them for their circumstances, we don't have to look at that grim structural cause of unemployment to confront the increasing phenomenon of downsizing and jobless recoveries or to address the low-wage corporate agenda, which many governments have adopted, an agenda that demands a high level of joblessness to bring down the labour costs. There is workfare, which is being implemented in Ontario and possibly in other provinces, but I do know of the one in Ontario and the tremendous impact that it's having there.

The abandonment of social housing, the emerging two-tier health system, which is being pushed more and more through what I consider a very devious method and not one in which the public is able to see what's happening and debate it - these are very disturbing developments. We can tolerate or overlook them. We're often led to believe that individuals, despite the hand that has been held out to them or the hand that's even been dealt to them, are usually the ultimate author of their fate.

Thinking about the change that this country has undergone, we have to look at the countries of England and the United States and the former president there, President Reagan, who once said, "There will always be people who prefer to sleep over hot air grates." So poverty and homelessness are just another lifestyle, another expression of people's free will. People would actually choose to sleep over hot air grates.

Part of that is we have to look at how we view poverty and how we approach it in dealing with the issues, and how we view the people who are caught in that cycle.

Not only have we failed to really address the challenge of poverty reduction in this country, but we have allowed the plight of the poor to grow much worse, and that is proven. One in five children now live in poverty.

For example, and it's been discussed before, with the elimination of CAP, which had established national standards for the provision of social assistance, the federal government allowed provinces to abdicate their responsibility to the poor. They are no longer required to provide assistance based on need. There are no longer any requirements at all, and we see the increase in misery that this change has created for people across Canada.

And that's not necessarily to criticize the federal government, totally. Even though there've been major cuts - cuts that we disagree with and don't believe in - we still also have to take responsibility for our own actions within our provinces and territories. We've seen many provinces use the excuses of the cuts to slash programs way farther than the cuts would force them to.

So they've used that to make fundamental changes within their programs. Then, of course, they can point their finger at the feds as being the architect of it all. Possibly the federal government is the architect, whether it was the Conservatives before, followed by the Liberals. But they're not wholly responsible, because we still do have some choices, and we have seen Alberta and Ontario make some very drastic choices toward people in need.

We've been criticized by the UN for our lack of compliance with the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. In the two decades that have passed since Canada signed that covenant, there has been no discernible progress on the elimination of poverty, nor even a developed recognition of poverty as an inherent source of inequality. Canada's own domestic human rights laws have never been amended to bring them into line with that covenant, so one of the most vulnerable, and regrettably one of the largest disadvantaged groups, still remain without protection under the federal act.

It's by virtue of the fact that the poor are so marginalized in our society, so stigmatized and so lacking in political power, that this situation has been allowed to persist. But change is coming - change that can be pointed to by the quotes that I read from the senator, as she brings forward in the second reading of Bill S-11, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. People are starting to speak out.

There was a young man from the Bloc Québecois, I think it was last week, who took his chair out of the House of Commons and created quite a media scene, but he did it for a reason, and a good reason, and that was to make people aware and to make the government listen to the cries of the poor. He did it for them.

It's sad that you have to grandstand at times to be heard but that's what he did and he did get the coverage and the media finally did wake up that some members of the Bloc Québecois, as well as the NDP, were fighting for the people who live in poverty.

So, people are standing up and starting to fight back, and in this year in particular, the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is a move to improve human rights protection on the federal, provincial and territorial levels, and especially protection for the poor. It is also pertinent that we find ourselves in the second year of the decade for the elimination of poverty.

The chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission has called for an amendment to add social condition to the prohibitive grounds of discrimination in the federal act. Seven provinces already have sort of protection in their human rights acts addressing this problem of discrimination against the poor.

Some provide better protection than others. The wording of the relevant sections varies from the broadest kind of protection in the Québec act, which speaks of social condition, which is being asked for federally, to more restrictive legislation which applies to people in receipt of public assistance.

Two provinces use the expression, "source of income," and one, "social origin."

The significant point here is that recognition of poverty as a human rights issue is growing in Canada, and I believe it's growing in the Yukon. Certain stereotypes of the poor are out there, and I've heard some outrageous ones from people worried about these proposed amendments, and it's convinced me even more that such an amendment is needed.

Through the work of the Human Rights Commission and groups like the Anti-Poverty Coalition and NAPO, these stereotypes are being challenged and people are learning more about the underlying social and economic causes of poverty. We're learning to put a human face to the issue and to recognize the devastating impacts of poverty on people's lives - and that's people who live in poverty throughout our whole system. It doesn't matter where, it has an impact. And we can't just put up fences and lock out parts of our society and only drive through it in protected cars.

Call this a country, or call this a society. That is something I have seen in parts of the United States: gated communities that only allow people who meet a certain income in. For some reason, they feel that they'll be able to survive that way and that the pressures building outside that gated community are not going to have an impact on their lives, their children's lives and their grandchildren's lives. By putting up the gate, they figure that they've dealt with the problem. By taking more for themselves and giving less back, they felt they'd dealt with the problem. Well, history has shown repeatedly that it doesn't go away. We have to deal with it. You can't put up a gate, because it's not going to go away. We have to all work toward it.

These are all reasons that I've brought this motion forward. I wanted to provide an opportunity to raise it in discussion and debate, and to contribute to the dialogue to heighten people's awareness of the needs of those who live in poverty and outside the mainstream of Canadian society.

Another reason is because I believe that the Yukon Human Rights Commission and the numerous social, justice, and anti-poverty groups across Canada are right that, by extending human rights protection to the poor, we can make a significant improvement in people's lives.

Senator Cohen, in a senate debate, is fighting for human rights. She spoke about the proposed amendment to the federal Human Rights Act as a powerful anti-poverty tool, because it not only addresses unfair practices but has the potential of stimulating discussion and educating the public. Through human rights legislation, then, we can both change discriminatory practices that contribute to the suffering of the disadvantaged, and we can influence attitudes in the long term.

Unfortunately, though, passage of the human rights protection for the poor will not result in the elimination of poverty in Canada nor in our territory.

It can't compel our respective governments to ensure a reasonable standard of living for all its citizens, at least not in the foreseeable future. It may help to focus attention, though, on a problem that our nation has ignored for far too long, even while committing to the eradication of poverty through various international covenants and declarations.

It's time to stop the growing distance between the rich and poor. It's time that we make commitments for all citizens. It's time that we look at our dismal performance on the home front and address it. But, adequate human rights protection is a place to start, and it's something we can look, strive and work toward.

Now, I want to talk a bit about the discrimination that low-income people can be subjected to, and there are different types. Some vulnerable groups in our society are protected under the federal and territorial Human Rights Act, and some are not. Almost everyday, low-income people experience discrimination in housing, employment, education, provision of public services, and so on. But despite the fact that they suffer discrimination very similar to that of protected groups, they have no remedy available when they are treated unfairly, and that's because it's not in the act.

Some people think, quite erroneously, that the extension of human rights protection to various groups implies the erosion of human rights for other groups, and I've heard that, as well. That's a misapprehension on many people's part. Rights are rights; they're not privileges. The protection of the rights of vulnerable groups is provided to ensure that barriers to equality are eliminated or reduced. Mr. Speaker, they don't confer a special advantage on anyone; they remove it.

When someone is denied rental accommodation because they are a social assistance recipient or because they depend on a disability pension or are on an old age pension or they have a low-income job, and for no other reason, then that is discrimination.

When someone is required to pay a large deposit for rent or for utilities or for some other service because they are poor, and high-income people are not required to pay, that is discrimination.

If someone is denied credit or has an application to renew their mortgage turned down simply because they receive public assistance of some type, and for no other reason, then that is discrimination - and that goes back to the story I told earlier.

People's lives are hurt by these policies and practices. People are forced into deeper poverty and despair because of this discrimination, and we need to ensure, at the very least, that protections are put into place.

Almost anyone is subject to circumstances which can drastically reduce their standard of living. Executives, civil servants, factory workers, miners: all could be laid off with little or no notice after years of conscientious work.

Illness and disability can strike anyone at any time. Yet, still, there's a tendency for most people to distance themselves from the poor and to blame the disadvantaged for their difficulties. Maybe it is more comforting not to have to address the fact that it's often a very thin line that separates a middle-class Canadian from someone who is struggling to survive.

Over the last - well, it could be the last eight years - many executives, many middle management, many civil servants, miners - and we don't have to go very far to think of miners that have lost their jobs and the families there - factory workers - and Ontario is a perfect example - people who may have been working 10, 15, 20 years of their lives lose their jobs. And what happens is you often base your lifestyle on your income.

You have mortgages that match your income. You have luxuries, if you can call them luxuries, based upon your income, whether it's one car or two cars. You have debts based upon your income. Then you get served a lay-off notice, or the mine closes. The company downsizes, which is something that has been ongoing for quite a few years now. Tens of thousands of workers - in some cases 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 workers - gone in three or four months out of companies, through no fault of their own.

All of a sudden, they are in that area that they've never thought about before. They are among the poor. All of a sudden, they are confronted with discrimination, through no fault of their own. Every day, they are out there trying to find work, for sometimes way less than what they'd based their lifestyle on. Slowly but surely, they spiral down. Slowly but surely, they become very aware of what it's like to be caught at the bottom of the barrel and of all the layers that are stacked against you and how hard it is to push up through it.

Then there's the youth who are now - for quite a few years now and I don't see much change - carrying a tremendous debt for the education they seek in the universities, to give them a good job or pursue an interest that they have that will contribute to our society. It's a debt that they can't deal with, and bankruptcy that often many of them are faced with and have to resort to. That's being changed by the federal government, as well. They're not going to allow them to declare bankruptcy the way they used to, as if the youth want to be saddled, at a very young age, with that against their credit rating.

So, they're starting out their lives, many of them starting off in a situation of extreme debt, without very many options, and often living in very poor conditions, and they're facing the same kind of restrictions - source of income. How do you get a place to stay? If they want to know where you get your money from, and they make a judgment on that, even though you may have an excellent credit rating, you may have excellent references, even though you may have a record of always paying your previous landlords, how do you break out of that?

This amendment is a very small step to try to enable people not to be judged on their source of income. This doesn't speak to bad credit ratings. If somebody has a bad credit rating, of course a landlord can do a credit check. Of course people can ask for a deposit. But what it speaks to is, just be fair, give people a chance, especially if they don't carry a bad credit rating. Don't judge them on their source of income. There's no law against poverty. It's perfectly legal to be poor, but we, as a government - federal, provincial and territorial - do have responsibilities to ensure that we look after all people in our country because, if we don't, it comes back on us. It's not just the fact that it's morally right; it actually comes back on us, and our country will suffer as a whole.

I have a poster framed in my office, which I look at every day, and its title is "Those Who Wait". It's about human rights. It's about mothers waiting to hear what has happened to their children and their husbands, and they don't get any answers. It's another violation of human rights.

Most of those people live in poverty. But those people never give up. They keep coming back and asking, and asking for change.

In this as well we have growing poverty, growing difficulties in our society, and even though I heard on the radio today that - or I heard one of the Liberal MPs from Montréal speak about boom times, jobs everywhere, lowest unemployment, poverty is growing.

It hasn't changed. So, if it's such a boom time, what's happened? Does that mean that only so much wealth is going to a certain segment? What kind of jobs are being supplied? Do we have a situation where the jobs are so poorly paid that people have to go to social assistance just to make ends meet when they have a family? I believe that's happening as well.

In 1987, I believe the Yukon changed - a phenomenal change. The Yukon Human Rights Act was introduced in 1987 by a previous NDP government. Up until that time, we never had a human rights act, and when that was brought in by the previous NDP government I know I, for one, was extremely proud. And I would have been proud of any party that would have brought in a human rights act, because the act is needed.

It's a time when you put aside your ideology or your party positions, and you talk about the issues. In this case, human rights is an issue that crosses all parties and is supported, I believe, by almost all parties and all people within them.

This motion is just another step in developing the Human Rights Act, and maybe the social condition would be better to have it, instead of source of income. Maybe that's something that has to be looked at down the road, but until it's done, source of income is an improvement over what we have and will enable people to have more protection within the territory.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, for four years in a row, Canada has been ranked by the United Nations as the best country in the world to live in. While this is certainly an accomplishment to be very proud of, there does remain some serious concerns about the level of poverty in Canada and the need to address poverty.

I just want to bring to your attention some of the grim statistics about poverty in this country. Between 1984 and 1994, the average poor family was six percent worse off. In 1995, 17.8 percent of Canadians lived below the statistical poverty line. Poverty is a problem, Mr. Speaker, that often leads to poor health, poor academic performance, unhealthy relationships and fewer job opportunities. These factors in turn present low-income families and individuals with a disadvantage to those with higher incomes.

As often is the case, those having to rely on social assistance to live are often stigmatized as not having much worth, and are in turn offered low-paying wages.

We, on this side of the House, believe that social assistance should be made available to those in need and believe that every opportunity should be made available for them to get ahead and to find a job and to buy a home. Those wishing to reintegrate into the workforce should be encouraged to do so and should not be penalized.

Mr. Speaker, I support the motion that's before us today, but I have some words of advice or caution to the member who introduced the motion. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a moment ago that we seem to stigmatize those who are poor as not having much worth and not being as equal as others, and that that is why we have this motion before us.

What I caution the Member for Whitehorse Centre about is, that I have heard that member many times in this House in the last year and a half making comments about corporations, about people who have money, about small business. I would mention to the Member for Whitehorse Centre that there are a lot of small business people and large business individuals and corporations who contribute greatly to those who have less throughout this country. It's not fair to stigmatize them and say they're all bad, as the member has a tendency to do from time to time.

I recall sitting in the House here the other day and hearing the member tell us that small businesses do not create jobs in this territory. Well, Mr. Speaker, my experience tells me otherwise. My experience tells me that small business creates all kinds of jobs in the territory. It creates all kinds of training, all kinds of opportunities for those who are in poverty to get out, and we see it almost every day.

Many small businesses, many larger corporations in our community and in the Yukon, contribute, on an annual basis, to very worthwhile projects to help people who are in need.

So, my caution to the Member for Whitehorse Centre is that, as he is telling us not to stigmatize those who are poor, he should be careful not to stigmatize those who are a little better off than the poor.

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today is requesting protection against discrimination on the basis of a person's lawful source of income, and I believe that it's a laudable action and one to which I'm pleased to offer our support. Such protection would apply to those with no source of income and those who are homeless and those who are working in very low-wage jobs.

As was mentioned, poverty is alive and well within Canada, and Yukon certainly is no exception. As Canadians and individuals, it's incumbent upon us to do whatever we can to help the less fortunate and provide them with opportunities necessary to leave the poverty trap.

For example, Mr. Speaker, we're all familiar with those on social assistance and the difficulty of getting off social assistance and back into the workforce once you're there, without having incentives in place such as employment opportunities and training. It seems that costs of living are going up but not enough is being done to help the people get back on their feet and back into the workforce.

One of the central roles of welfare reform is to move recipients off the welfare rolls and into the labour force. The success of such reform is, in part, predicated on the ability of providing opportunities and incentives to work.

Currently in the Yukon, low-income individuals may be subject to discrimination based on their source of income. This discrimination may occur when applying for work, seeking living arrangements, using public facilities and requesting services that are available to the public.

Denying an individual any of the above-mentioned services is the denial of a person's fundamental rights and basic amenities.

Article 2 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out in the declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, social origin, property or other status. The declaration also says, Mr. Speaker, that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for his or her health and well-being, including food, housing, necessary social services, et cetera. In simple terms, individuals, regardless of their income and their source of income, are and should be entitled to these basic rights and freedoms.

We have all experienced, at one time or another in our lives, financial difficulties. In light of the tough economic times being experienced by Yukoners, there are more people losing their jobs and more people seeking work in order to be able to raise their families and keep their heads above water.

In one of the readings that was enclosed in the information presented by the Human Rights Commission, reference was made to a story that involved the young family - a stay-at-home mother of two and a husband who lost his job. I know that the member who introduced the motion talked briefly about that. After not being able to find work, Mr. Speaker, the family of this individual was forced to go on social assistance, and the family continued to reside in their home as the mortgage was reasonable, and there was a two-year waiting list for public housing. The individual in question continued to pay his mortgage payment on time. Later on, the father was able to find some work - part-time work - and when it came time to renew the mortgage, as the Member for Whitehorse Centre has said, the family was denied, for the reason that they were on social assistance. That decision was made despite their ability to keep up their payments and despite the great credit rating they had had over the years. In turn, the family had to sell their house and move into a two-bedroom apartment.

The kids lost their rooms, the family lost its backyard, and the kids had to change schools, and the father spends almost all of what he makes now, commuting back and forth to work to his new job - all because of discrimination.

Is this fair? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker.

Poverty still remains one of Canada's greatest barriers to equality. To help resolve this problem, the rights of the less fortunate should be given clear protection under our laws.

The Yukon Party will be supporting the changes to the Human Rights Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cable: I'd like to thank the Member for Whitehorse Centre for bringing the motion forward.

The Human Rights Commission appeared before this House on March 20, 1995. The commission representatives went over a few areas of business, and then the commission representatives dealt with proposed amendments to the Human Rights Act.

One of the proposed amendments dealt with the issue before this House - the discrimination against persons and denial of equal treatment based on source of income. One of the most common forums of this discrimination is the denial of availability of rental accommodation to people on social assistance.

I think we can say that we all disagree with this type of stigmatization of the poor, and that this is not acceptable.

We in the Liberal caucus support the motion, and we will support amending the Human Rights Act to give effect to the principles in the motion.

I expect that the government members also will support the motion.

I would like to draw to the members' attention, though, that there were two other amendments proposed by the Human Rights Commission representatives when they appeared before this House on March 20, 1995.

Those representatives, at that time, had asked that the act also be amended to add mental disability as a grounds for discrimination under section 7 of the act. This section deals with obligations to make reasonable provisions in connection with employment, accommodation and services for the special needs of persons with physical disabilities. The commission wanted the section enlarged so that it assisted all disabled persons, whether the disability was physical or mental.

The last amendment the commission wanted dealt with the issue of hate literature and hate activities. The Criminal Code has some levers to deal with these activities but in the view of the commission - and I think in the view of many other people - there is a legal gap and the commission wanted that gap closed.

I would like to read to the mover of the motion the comments that were made to that particular amendment that was sought. I'm quoting from page 1466 of Hansard, dated March 20, 1995.

"The second amendment to the act that we put forward for consideration deals with the issue of hate literature and hate activities. Currently, the Yukon Human Rights Act does not address discriminatory publication. However, over the years we have received inquiries pertinent to hate literature in particular. Copies of the hate material, predominately of a racial and sexist nature, currently in our files, can be provided to any of the members if they so desire."

Now, it's my recollection that the then director of the Human Rights Commission, Margaret McCullough, provided us with a fair amount of this hate literature.

She brought it to our attention. The commission at the time, in March, also brought to our attention that British Columbia had amended its Human Rights Act to attempt to close the legal gap, and I think it's interesting to note the present arguments going on between the British Columbia Attorney General and the federal government relating to the prosecution of providers of Internet hate literature.

It is our position in the Liberal caucus that all three amendments are worth looking at by the government and by this Legislature. I don't think it is a secret that racial tensions are bubbling just below the surface in both the country and in Yukon, and those charged with dealing with hate literature should be given a full arsenal of legal weapons.

The government appears to have readily accepted the recommendation in this motion. I hope that the government, when it sees fit to bring forward legislation amending the act to deal with discrimination based on source of income, will choose also to deal with the remaining issues at the same time. And I hope it will deal with those issues as a single package in the same expeditious manner.

Discrimination based on hate-mongering is every bit as biting and destructive as discrimination based on poverty.

As I said, we, in the Liberal caucus, will be supporting the motion and we will not be proposing an amendment, but we would like to hear from the mover of the motion in reply that he considers the other issues need to be dealt with and that he will attempt to persuade his colleagues to bring in an amending package.

Deputy Speaker: If the member now speaks, he will close debate. Does any other member wish to be heard?

Mr. Hardy: To address the concerns that were brought forward by the Member for Riverside and the Liberal caucus, I definitely do support additional amendments to the Human Rights Act, and I do support the ones he mentioned - the mental disability amendment and the hate literature and activities around it. It feels good to know that I believe that all members of this House would welcome those changes, and I will be looking forward to seeing those amendments looked at and brought forward in this House. I will work on that behalf.

I also am pleased that the members of the Yukon Party support this amendment. But, I was given a word of caution that, I suppose, I always paint business as bad. That's not true. I'm a former businessman myself, just for their information. My Yukon hire report, which has 28 recommendations, points toward being concerned and respectful of business, as well as the access to capital motion that was supported in here.

When I spoke earlier on the source of income, I started off with an example that pointed toward people who were in a privileged position. That happened to be in Tibet. So, source of income, just because you're poor isn't just where your income comes from, but it could be broader. And, still, it is discrimination. We have to keep that in mind; it is still discrimination and something I would hope we would all be opposed to.

We also have to be judged by our actions and how we work in our communities, how we support each other, how we give to the charities that exist and the organizations and groups, such as anti-poverty groups like NAPO, the support we offer them and how we involve ourselves.

I know, for instance, the Member for Riverdale South attends the anti-poverty group and is quite an active member, and it's always a pleasure to see her there working on behalf of that.

In closing, I can see a source of income even being modified to social condition, but I believe that there are amendments that have to come forward to the Yukon Human Rights Act, but many of them have to come forward from the Yukon Human Rights Commission itself. I do know that they are doing a tremendous amount of work over there, and I'd like to acknowledge them. I believe that everybody here supports the work that they're doing.

When we bring amendments forward, often one amendment points to a situation, that there be more work that needs to be done in that area. In human rights, I don't believe that it will ever end. I believe that we should always strive to make this a better place.

Just before I close - I started with a couple of stories, and I'll end with a story. I think it was last week that we were going to debate the human rights motion when it wasn't necessarily expected to be debated, and I had not necessarily prepared to debate it. I was sitting there thinking, "Oh gee, I don't have this. I don't have that. I haven't covered my material well enough. I haven't talked to enough people." After a couple of minutes, I realized that I should always be ready to defend human rights. We should never only pick our times when it's appropriate to defend human rights and, for me, it was a good lesson. I should always be able to stand up and defend human rights and always be prepared to defend human rights throughout this world.

So, in closing, I'd like to thank the members from the Yukon Party and the members from the Liberal Party for supporting this motion, and hopefully, we can move on to more improvement in the future.

Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

Motion No. 105 agreed to

Unanimous consent requested

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Deputy Speaker, yesterday, pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7), Motion No. 102 was identified as an item of business to be called today. Having consulted with and obtained the agreement of the Member for Watson Lake, in whose name Motion No. 102 stands, I would request the unanimous consent of the House that Motion No. 102 not be called.

Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Deputy Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that the Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by Minister of Education that the Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?

Motion agreed to

Deputy Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Deputy Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the members' wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Deputy Chair: Okay, 15 minutes.

Recess

Deputy Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Committee is dealing with the main estimates.

Bill No. 9 - First Appropriation Act, 1998-99 - continued

Deputy Chair: We are on the Department of Renewable Resources. Is there any further debate?

Department of Renewable Resources - continued

Mr. Ostashek: When we left the debate yesterday, we had asked the minister for some more information that the wildlife branch would have on the makeup of the Finlayson caribou herd. Does the minister have that information available for us now, that we asked for yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Yes, I have a couple. I will give it to the member at this point, instead of doing legislative returns, so that information is across right away. The member can have a quick look at it and see if this is what he is looking for.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, it will take us a little time to go through this information and I don't want to hold up debate while we're doing it, so I'll just continue with the debate and I'll get a chance to look at this sometime before we get out of general debate and come back to it if need be or ask the minister for further information.

But before we go much further today, I would just like to clear some things with the minister so that we don't get into a large debate here that gets away from the issue at hand. I'd just like to inform the minister, Mr. Chair, that I'm looking for him to provide me with some biological evidence so that I can support his decision to go with a permit hunt. That is what I'm trying to get from the minister - some biological evidence so that I can feel comfortable in supporting the position that the department is taking with respect to the Finlayson caribou herd.

We have walked all around the issue in the last several days in this House and, from various comments made on both sides, I don't think this adds anything to the debate or the issue at hand.

The minister is aware by now that there's a perception of unfairness by the general public in the decision that's being made. What I'm trying to find out from the minister is if there is some other evidence that has not been put out in public that would give some comfort to the resident hunters who have been very vocal in their opposition to the recommendation that is out for review.

That is what I'm trying to establish here, and nothing further. I would just like to be able to have some evidence presented by the minister that would allow me to support his recommendations, even if it is limited support. I haven't been able to establish that. Possibly with legislative returns he has tabled here now, I will be able to. I will get to them as we go along.

I just have one question of a general nature now, along the same issue. I would like to move off this permit hunt shortly, because there are many other areas in this department that I need to explore before I can clear the department.

Can the minister tell this House - we've had a lot of debate on the size of the herd and whether it's the minister's thoughts and his department's thoughts that the herd is decreasing in size - it's something that was to be expected after the predator control program had ceased operation a couple of years ago - but we did talk to a great extent back and forth without really getting down on the numbers. What is the optimum level that the minister is trying to establish for the population of this herd? What is the optimum level that the minister is looking for?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Well, Mr. Chair, we don't have a number that we're trying to establish here. We know from past numbers that approximately three percent was the allowable harvest within the Finlayson herd.

That's approximately 120 animals, and we know that there have been harvests over and above that. We know that there is a low calf/cow ratio, and we know that the numbers are going down, and we need to take precautionary measures because of that.

I've told the member in the past - and I know that it's going to be very difficult for him to understand this, but we're taking the recommendations from the Fish and Wildlife Management Board in which they tied a number of things to it - trapper training, assistance from us for Ross River people, looking at habitat protection and so on - and will come up with a solution.

We asked the Fish and Wildlife Management Board to look at the possibility of a registration or permit hunt. In their process, they had made the recommendation that we sit down with the Ross River people and work things out with them. In doing that, they asked that we provide trapper training assistance to them. They asked that we look at habitat protection and provide a game guardian for this hunting season. Those are all part of the recommendations that came from the Fish and Wildlife Management Board.

We're carrying that through. We have a lot of discussions to take place with them. No final decisions have come at all. There have been people who have come forth with interest in the Finlayson caribou herd and have expressed themselves and made recommendations to us. Those will certainly not be put aside. They'll be part of the discussions when we take another trip up to Ross River to have discussions with them on how to best approach this situation.

Mr. Ostashek: I understand that and those are laudable goals for the minister to be aiming for. I don't have any difficulty with any of what he said.

What we have here though is a problem of the perception of unfairness. That's what we're dealing with. I'm looking for biological information from the minister that will refute that perception of unfairness.

I think the minister misunderstood the question. I wasn't looking at the allowable harvest; I was looking at what the optimum level of the total population of the herd was that his department was aiming for. The herd, as the minister knows, started at 1,500 animals, prior to the wolf control back in the early 1980s. It grew to 6,000 animals. It has now dropped back to about 4,000. What is the optimum level of population that the department is looking to maintain that herd at. That's my question.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Well, I told the member that we don't know what that number is. If the herd continues to fall and we find that through the census that we do as of next fall, even though the census is not spread out far enough to do real comparisons, we would have, I guess, a lot better numbers to work with in trying to determine what numbers out there can really be sustained in that area - providing for hunters, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, and providing for predators.

We know that, wherever we go, there are going to be predators out there taking animals down, and we don't know that number. The department wants to continue to monitor this closely. They feel, at this point, because the numbers are dropping and continue to drop, even with the rut count and so on, there's a good possibility that we need to be taking stronger action in the future.

So, we would like to work with the Ross River people - and they recognize this, too - in their own hunting experience. Seeing that there possibly aren't as many animals as there were during the wolf control, things are definitely different and a bit tougher for them, too, and they're taking action. And I think we should be taking action, too.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Chair, I, for one, don't have any difficulty with the minister taking action. I'm sure the resident hunters don't mind him taking any action if there's some biological evidence for it.

Now, the minister says we don't have an optimum herd population but we're concerned that the numbers are continuing to drop. I suggest to the minister that his wildlife managers must have an optimum population figure that they want to maintain that herd at; otherwise, they would not be taking any actions at this point. They must have made some projections when they ceased the predator control program as to what level the herd would drop back to with the increase in predation.

Now, I know the managers within his department. I know a lot of them on a personal basis. I know that they are very good in their job and I know that they wouldn't be making decisions based on not having an optimum herd population that they want to stabilize this herd at. And I would like the minister to try to get that for me before we get out of this debate. If we are going to be taking actions to restrict the harvesting of the herd, we have to know what we hope to accomplish by it.

We have to know: do they want to stabilize the herd where it is now; do they want stabilize it at 4,500 animals; do they want to stabilize it at 5,000 animals? What is the target that we're shooting for? This is the kind of information that we need to get out to these people who are not happy with the restrictions that are being placed upon them. That's all I'm asking the minister for: some biological evidence.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Well, first of all, there are no restrictions put on people at this point. There are recommendations that came from the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and we're following through with things that they asked us to do. No final decisions have been made, and I've relayed this message many times to the member.

When the wolf- control program was initiated, the population of the herd was approximately 2,000. It grew to 6,000. We expected the numbers to drop and the number of wolves in the area to increase.

Now, from the department, we feel that the number of wolves have stabilized in the area and we're not sure exactly what the number of the herd is at this point. In using numbers back to 1996, we know that there are 4,000 animals; it could be lower. Is it the number 3,000 or 3,500 that would stabilize in that area and support that number in that herd? I'm not sure. I know the department is working at that.

What we don't want to do is to be in a position of taking drastic action because the numbers are so low. It's the same concern that the Ross River people have and that's why we're taking precautionary measures. We know right now that the numbers are declining and only common sense would tell us that - from the cow/calf ratio, and so on.

It only makes sense to do this. Now, what could happen in the end, as part of discussions with Ross River, is that everybody could be looking at a voluntary compliance through this. That's what could possibly result. We don't know that. Talks are too early at this stage, although it is an important issue to them, and we will continue to work with them.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Chair, I think if the minister would have made that statement three days ago when I asked him in this House, we could have alleviated a lot of this debate. The minister said he was implementing a permit hunt. It didn't matter what came out. He was going to implement a permit hunt. That was his statement on April 20. I read it back to him time and time again, and I have it here in the Legislature today. I asked him if he was going to follow the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and meet with the Ross River Dena Council prior to setting the number of permits that would be available for the hunt. The minister got up and said, "Yes, we are going to be implementing the recommendations that came from the Fish and Wildlife Management Board in regard to permits." Nothing could have been clearer in his statement than that. There was no indication of any kind that this could change to be a voluntary compliance situation. That is what the Fish and Game Association has asked for, and it would be quite happy with that, and it could have alleviated a lot of frustration for the minister.

That's why I asked the question in the House, Mr. Chair - so I could go back to him and say, "The fact that you're going on permits this year is not for certain. There's still a possibility that there could be some other sort of restriction brought in that would satisfy the department and would satisfy the resident hunters, such as voluntary compliance."

Now, if the minister is saying today that the resident hunters can rest assured that there may be a possibility it'll be permit, but there is a possibility that it'll be voluntary compliance, that's different from what the Fish and Wildlife Management Board recommended; that's different from what the minister said in this House on April 20.

Would the minister care to clarify that?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I don't know how many times this question has been asked of me. Every time I answer, he refers back to one portion of a discussion we had days ago. Mr. Chair, I said that we would be taking the recommendations from the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and working with them.

What the member fails to do in regard to this recommendation - he looks at one portion of the recommendation, and that is registration permit hunt. The recommendations from the Fish and Wildlife Management Board have others with it to address the issue of the Finlayson caribou herd, and that's trapper training, assistance from the department to the Ross River Dena Council, game guardian - to, again, have a game guardian present during hunting season - and look at habitat protection. These are all part of it. The main part to that was to make sure that we are not implementing a position without talking to the Ross River people.

We had one discussion in the last couple of weeks with them - very briefly on it - in regard to wildlife management in the area in general, and they would like to follow up with meetings with us. We would very much like to do that, and we have committed the department to go and meet with them in the very near future.

I haven't gone off what I said in the beginning. Those recommendations - we will continue to take them and work with them.

I don't know where the member is coming from. We've never thrown out the ideas or suggestions from Ross River people or any other organization. There are many people who have been part of this planning process in the past. It could be, in the end, that we have no choice but to go with a permit hunt. We don't know that yet. Discussions are too early. It is too close to the beginning stages to really come down with finalized numbers.

Even though the Ross River Dena Council has been working with this department now for several years, they're looking at a management plan that's much bigger than the Finlayson herd. We would like to focus, at least the beginning part of this plan, on the Finlayson herd, because, just with the evidence in front of us, we could be making major decisions on this very soon.

Mr. Ostashek: I know that there were further recommendations from the Fish and Wildlife Management Board, other than the permit hunt. I know that. I have no difficulty with the minister consulting with the Ross River Dena Council on all the issues. Nothing has ever been said about voluntary compliance, and I didn't see anything in the recommendations from the Fish and Wildlife Management Board that even suggested voluntary compliance.

Is the minister saying to me today that I missed something there - that the Fish and Wildlife Management Board asked the minister to look at voluntary compliance as well?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: No, the member hasn't missed that. That wasn't a suggestion that came from them. What they were emphasizing a lot in their recommendations was that we go out and talk to local people and that could, in itself, steer this process a lot. We're carrying that through.

The Fish and Game Association did request a meeting with the Ross River people, but that has not happened yet, to make presentations and what not.

We don't know what final discussions are going to come out of the Ross River Dena Council and local people, so there are a lot of open areas out there. There's a lot of area for suggestions to steer this process, and I think that's the important part of this recommendation of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board - to make sure that we meet with local people on this.

It's quite an easy thing for us to do. We've been having meetings over the past years with them and they're anxious to have a finalization of a management plan. But we would like them to also focus their first efforts on the Finlayson herd.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to see that the minister is not as hard in his position as he was when this debate started on April 20 in the House - in saying that, yes, we're going to have permits - and that there's a possibility that there may be voluntary compliance. I'm pleased to hear the minister say that. I think that's all that the Fish and Game Association was asking for.

They also are looking for some biological information and evidence to support the minister's argument. When I look at the leg. return that the minister has given me today on the number of bulls in a herd, I think the minister should pay close attention to that legislative return and realize why he has a problem with the resident hunters, because there's nothing in this legislative return that provides any evidence that curtailing the number of bulls killed in the herd is going to increase the size of the herd. What this says is that in 1997 - that's last year, Mr. Chair - there were 52 bulls per 100 cows. So, the ratio of bulls to cows has not changed from 1992 to 1997.

Now, there are 1,500 adult bulls in the herd, in this legislative return, and I accept those numbers as being fairly accurate, based on the population of 4,000 animals.

The resident hunters took 57 bulls from that herd. I listened to a biologist make a presentation to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board who said reducing the number of bulls taken to 20 - I think is the figure he used that night - would have absolutely no impact on the number of calves that were being born each spring. His own professionals - and he has stated it in this legislative return - say that 30 bulls per 100 cows is adequate to breed all the cows that are available to be bred. So, we have a surplus of 27 bulls for every 100 cows. There is a surplus of 27 bulls. So, I would just point out to the minister that this is the reason that there are so many upset resident hunters. They are not impacting and are taking bulls below the optimal ratio that his fish and game managers believe is necessary to impregnate the cows in the herd and to maintain the herd.

Yes, the population of the herd is dropping but even with a surplus of 22 bulls per 100 cows, resident hunters are not even harvesting anywhere near that surplus at this point. I mean, that's a tremendous amount of surplus bulls in the herd and that is why resident hunters are upset.

Now, the minister is going to have to do a better job of communicating with them as to why he needs to curtail their harvest and what it's going to do to impact upon the herd. Nevertheless, I will leave that at this point since the minister has said the permit hunt is not carved in stone for this year and that there is some room to believe that it'll only be a permit hunt if that's the only way they can control the hunt. I suggest to the minister, when he's communicating with the Fish and Game Association and the Outfitters Association, that represents hunters, that he's going to have to produce some better biological evidence than this.

Another concern, Mr. Chair, is exactly what the minister has just said.

The reason that, I believe, resident hunters have dug their heels in and are fighting this issue so hard is that the minister said this was only the first step in an overall management plan that they want to see for the area. I think all hunters agree with that, Mr. Chair, but they want to see a management plan that's based on biological information.

Now, if the minister, in the first instance, is going to come out with restrictions that are not based on hard biological evidence, then it's going to be very, very hard to get this same group of hunters to accept an overall management plan for the area pertaining to sheep, to moose and to other species that are hunted in the area. That is the issue that is facing the minister and the issue that he is going to have to deal with to convince resident hunters that permit hunts are required.

Mr. Chair, along with that, another thing that's hampering the minister in this decision now that's facing him - and I know it's a tough decision; it's not easy to try to keep all factions happy - is that the Porcupine Caribou Management Board came out today with recommendations for new restrictions on harvesting the barren ground caribou, but the restrictions that they are recommending apply to all users of the resource. I think that the minister wouldn't have any difficulty selling something like that at all, if all users of the resource felt they were being treated in the same manner.

Another issue to wind this up, without going on to debate it all night, is a perception by resident hunters that they are not being fairly represented on the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. Now, the chapter in the umbrella final agreement pertaining to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board, chapter 16.7, says: "The board shall be comprised of six nominees of the Yukon First Nations and six nominees of the government" - basically the minister of the day.

There's a perception by resident hunters that, of the six government nominees, they are not representative of the total non-aboriginal population. There's a perception that the board is skewed toward the conservation side and, as a result of that, they have very little confidence in the decisions that are being handed down by the Fish and Wildlife Management Board.

Now, the minister has the ability to try to rectify that - if he agrees at all with what they're saying. I'm not certain of all of the people who are appointed to the board now, but I know that's a perception that's been around for a long time, and it seems to have gotten worse, instead of better.

We know there were some growing pains when the Fish and Wildlife Management Board got off the ground, but I believe that if we are going to all cooperate in the Yukon - and I think we all want to cooperate; we all want to have a healthy wildlife population; we all want to be able to utilize those populations, whether we're a hunter or a non-hunter, or an aboriginal or a non-aboriginal; we all love the Yukon and the things that it has to offer Yukoners - no one wants to see them carry an unfair proportion of the burden for any restrictions that come into place.

One of the ways that we were supposed to alleviate that was through the Fish and Wildlife Management Board, and this was to be representative of the population of the Yukon. There's a perception, as I said to the minister, out there now that it's not. I would just like to hear the minister's views on it - if his feelings are that the board is representative of major users of the resource or not - and if he agrees, is he going to take any corrective action?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: In regard to the question and statements the minister has made about the Finlayson caribou herd, again, we haven't changed our position. Over the last few days of discussions, I have said the same thing over and over and over to the member. We haven't changed our position at all.

In regard to taking precautionary measures - and the member has information that we gave him, as requested - we know that there's an overharvest of that herd. Three percent represents approximately 120 animals, and last year's harvest was approximately 157 animals. So, that's higher than what should be taken out at this point.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: The member says, "It's not bulls." But, it sure made an impression to people that aboriginal people are just taking cows and calves. But, it doesn't show a decline in numbers here. It is interesting, anyway, for people out there listening.

So, we'll continue to carry out the recommendations that the Fish and Wildlife Management Board have provided to us and start working with the Ross River Dena Council on resolving this issue.

The member had asked about the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and whether or not there's equal representation to all people in the Yukon. Well, the appointments from the Yukon First Nations and those from YTG are there on the board to represent all Yukon people.

They've made those commitments by being on the board and we feel that they have been doing a good job. Now, if the member is concerned about this in regard to past recommendations that the board has given government, is the member saying that the board has not made good recommendations and equal representation to all Yukoners in the past and that that recommendation is not a good one? Is that what the member is saying?

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, what I'm saying is quite clearly what Yukoners are telling me. That's what I'm saying to the minister. There is a perception that they don't feel they're being adequately represented. It's not me. Let's leave personalities out of this. It's not me at all. I'm speaking on behalf of Yukoners. It's my job, as opposition, to raise these issues with the minister. That is what I'm doing. He doesn't need to just listen to me. He only needs to read today's paper and yesterday's paper to see that those same comments are being made in the papers. Not by me. They're being made by the president of the Fish and Game Association.

So, there is a perception out there that the minister has to deal with and I'm raising it for him.

The minister stated that there is an overharvest in the Finlayson caribou herd. I'm asking the minister, in light of the legislative return that he tabled regarding the 52 bulls per 100 cows, does he believe that there's an overharvest of bulls in the herd?

Now, I'm not saying that aboriginal people don't harvest bulls. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just asking the minister, does he believe, based on the numbers that he presented in this House, that there are 52 bulls per 100 cows, that there's been an overharvest of bulls from the Finlayson herd?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: While the overharvest is the overharvest in the total numbers and it doesn't matter whether they are bulls or cows, Mr. Chair. At this point, there is an overharvest of 37 animals and whether you're taking out all bulls or all cows, the number in that herd is down. Even though the numbers show that the proportionate number of bulls to cows is enough to keep on a good breed every year, there are 37 animals over and above what normally would be taken out each year. If you continue to not focus on that and focus on one side of this - the member is only focusing on one side of this - and fail to look at the big picture and fail to look at the management of the herd itself, we won't get anywhere if he continues to do that.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Chair, it's not me who's focusing on one side; it's the minister. He's talking about raising the population of the herd. His own biologists say reducing the bull harvest is not going to raise the population of the herd. I heard him say it. I was at the meeting.

A restriction that would raise the population of the herd would be a bull-only harvest for all users of the herd. That would make sense if you're looking to raise the population of the herd. So, his own biologists have said in the legislative return, it only takes 30 bulls per 100 cows. Forty bulls would raise the population of the herd. We've got 52 bulls per 100 cows.

So, it's not that we're focusing on one side; we want to know that what we're doing is in the best interest of the herd and the biological evidence to point out that it's there, but it doesn't seem to be there.

I raised briefly in general debate at the start of the session the other night the contribution of $35,000 that's been given to the Conservation Society to advise the minister and his department on policy. Has the minister been approached by the Fish and Game Association for funding to also advise the government on policy?

I'll let him answer that first.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: In regard to the Finlayson caribou, Mr. Chair, it's just a matter of simple mathematics, and the member cannot grasp that yet - but maybe one day he will - one day he will.

The Yukon Conservation Society participates on a wide range of things and makes recommendations to government and advises the government on a wide range of things, and has been doing this for a long time, whether it's in regard to development or conservation, or what not.

Those recommendations come from them to us. They attend a lot of meetings and workshops. They participate in working groups and advisory committees. They prepare written submissions and responses. They make oral p