Whitehorse, Yukon

Speaker: I will call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to introduce a very well-known person to the Yukon, Mr. Ted Harrison, who is in the gallery with his son Charles and Charles' partner, Kate. Could I ask the House to welcome them?

Applause

In remembrance of Robina (Nicky) Harrison

Hon. Mr. Roberts: I have been asked on behalf of the House to pay tribute to Robina (Nicky) Harrison. Now, Nicky was - and that's her nickname and the name that everyone knew her by; I never called her Robina once, but I did call her Nicky lots of times, and she called me lots of things lots of times - in Malaysia from 1958 to 1963. This is where she met Ted. Nicky was a staff sergeant in the U.K. Women's Corps. That's where they got married. After their stint in Malaysia, they went to New Zealand for three years, from 1963 to 1966, and that's there Charles was born.

Now, I have known Charles since he was a baby, because we first met this family back in 1967. When they left New Zealand, they went back to England for 18 months, and the call of Canada became their motto. This was a time when Canada was hiring or soliciting many teachers from outside the country, and Ted was one of the 50 who worked for Northland School Division, where I was for one year.

One of the things that I think is very important to recognize about this special woman is that she had a special place in the hearts of many Yukoners. Nicky passed away in Victoria on March 21, 2000, three months short of her 80^th birthday.

When we were in northern Alberta, I had my first stint in the Yukon in 1965 when I came up here for one year with my wife, and I returned to university, went back and then taught for one year in northern Alberta. And this is where we met Ted, Nicky and Charles.

Now, Ted, Nicky and Charles lived here from 1968 to around 1995, and then moved on to Victoria. When we were teaching in northern Alberta, we became very close friends. I wasn't that political at that time, but I had some ambitions to be involved in the teachers' association, and I got involved with the local of the Alberta Teachers' Association, and so did Ted. Ted became our media person and, of course, Nicky became our guide.

I can recall that the call of the north came very distinctly one night, when Ted, Nicky and Charles were over at our place having supper, and I showed them slides of Carcross and the Yukon. We went for a walk and, as Ted often does - he muses and is a philosopher - he said, "I must go there." So, the following month we were in Calgary attending an ATA meeting, and the Yukon was there doing its recruitment. So, we ended up being interviewed by John Ferbey and Hank Bugara, whom I think many of you might know.

I was offered a job at Christ the King High at that time. I became principal. I always wondered how I got to be a principal at such a young age. I said that, well, if you returned in those days, they made you an administrator automatically, because the movement of teachers out of the territory was about 75 percent. So, if you came back, it's obvious that you liked it.

Ted and Nicky were assigned to Carcross. During this time, our relationship grew even more, because going back and forth, we ended up going alternate weekends. One weekend, they would come to town and we would go to Carcross. Of course, during those times, we had our three children, and so they grew up with Charles, and we became very close.

Nicky was a person whom you respected, because she respected you. Long before the women's movement ever became a reality, this was the expectation that Nicky had of herself. She had very firm views about things. She was very open about sharing these ideas, and she made sure you listened to her ideas.

She gave respect, and she expected it in return. Nicky was a person who said it the way she thought it, and it was always concern for finding good in everybody.

Nicky was the foundation of the Harrison family. She was the guide for Ted and, of course, for Charles in those days, who, I remember, was just a going concern. She would protect them from the elements, and I don't mean weather elements - she did that too - but from all aspects of their life in the Yukon. She was the organizer, and she was the connector of many Yukon friends. Nicky had another side to her: she was also the life of any gathering/party. Nicky, in her younger years, I am told, was the entertainment. She was a fun-loving person. She was always cordial, and, because of her Scottish heritage, she basically was a person who was very honest. She was a positive influence with all the people with whom she came in contact.

One of the other aspects of her long standing here in the Yukon was her contribution to the education system in Yukon. She was one of the founding kindergarten teachers who began our present program. At that time, the Yukon kindergarten program was in its beginning stages and it was independent of the school system, but Nicky had a lot to do with bringing it in as part of the education system. We were one of the first places in the country to have kindergarten as part of our public school system, and Nicky was one of the pillars of that program.

Nicky was loved by all of the people whom she worked with. Students, when they became adults, did not forget their kindergarten teacher, and she was always remembered, Mr. Speaker. I recall that because many of the students whom I had as a principal in the many schools I went to always remembered who their kindergarten teacher was.

What they remembered about Mrs. Harrison was the fact that she made learning interesting and would take her students on all kinds of interesting field trips. Nicky was one of the pioneers in our Yukon kindergarten program.

And she should be remembered as a teacher who always had a smile on her face and who loved the people she worked with. In her latter years in teaching, she taught at Jack Hulland, which was my last place of employment. I didn't have the opportunity to work with her there, but I didn't have to; I heard about her for years after because many of the children she had in that system ended up sending their own children back to the same school, and they could always remember Nicky.

On behalf of the Yukon Legislature, we offer Charles, Ted and Kate our deepest sympathies, and we thank you for your contribution to Yukon life. We thank Nicky for her contribution to Yukon life. Robina (Nicky) will be missed by all Yukoners, and we thank you for having known her.

Thank you.

In remembrance of Pushinder (Bobby) Brar

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the House to pay tribute to Pushinder, or as he was best known in Faro, Bobby Brar. He passed away last week unexpectedly due to some health complications, and it was quite a shock in the community of Faro and around Yukon for the people whom he knew.

Bobby did a lot of volunteer work in the community of Faro. He was a long-time president of Local 1051 of the steel workers union there, and he was the president at the time of his passing. He also put tremendous effort into the community, serving the food bank in some of the community's toughest times. I knew Bobby very well. I met him some 14 years ago when I first came to the Yukon and worked at the Faro mine. Bobby was always someone who was very proud, as a working person, of the simple life that he led. He was known for his shovel operation, which was essentially the top job in the pit.

He did that for many, many years and was proud of his ability to operate heavy equipment. Bobby always enjoyed a good laugh, and he and his partner, Shirley, were some of the most hospitable people whom I've ever met.

Whenever I used to go to their house, they were always very quick to bring out some chai tea or beer or a cup of coffee or whatever you wanted or whatever you asked for. They would always lay out a nice spread so that you felt very welcome and very at home and always engaged in some good discussion.

I just want to say that Bobby will be missed. On behalf of the New Democrat caucus and this Legislature, we would like to extend our condolences to Shirley, his family and his friends. We are very sad to see Bobby go and he will be missed.

Speaker: Are there any visitors to be introduced?

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Netro: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the privilege of introducing my family members today. With us today is my sister, Helen Charlie, my son, Curtis Netro, and my very good friend Ernie Peter, who is from Arctic Village, Alaska.

Thank you.

Applause

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to introduce His Worship, the Mayor of Dawson City, Glen Everitt.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Yukon government should continue to promote aggressively the Yukon's interest in the Alaska Highway pipeline.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Yukon Liberal Party campaigned in the recent election on a promise of providing certainty to Yukon businesses and Yukon people; and

(2) the Yukon Liberal government is seeking legislative support for a budget first tabled by the previous NDP administration, which it has now adopted as its own; and

(3) the three-year capital plan, included with the Budget Address of February 21, 2000, is an integral part of that budget; and

(4) it is important to provide certainty to Yukon people about several major ongoing projects, including replacement of the Whitehorse Correctional Centre, upgrade to the Old Crow airport facility, and numerous recreation, sewage, land development and other infrastructure initiatives; and

(5) the Premier has acknowledged that the territorial government's finances are in a healthy condition, including an accumulated surplus of at least $56.2 million as of March 31, 2000; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Liberal government to make an unequivocal commitment to Yukon people that it will fully honour the commitments in the three-year capital plan that was included with the Budget Address, as of February 21.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Mountainview Place trailer park, located on Range Road, is an ill-conceived, poorly planned project that will not provide an affordable alternative for the owners of older trailers to relocate there; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Housing Corporation not to proceed with the sale of these lots, but instead to turn the project over to the Department of Community and Transportation Services for a complete reworking of the design of the project to correct the design flaws and to ensure the creation of larger, more competitively priced, affordable lots.

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Yukon Liberals, particularly the Member for Riverdale South, promised during the election to seek financial compensation for residents of Boswell Crescent whose property was seriously damaged by a major electrical power surge on October 31, 2000; and

(2) the Liberal government has broken faith with the people of Riverdale by failing to honour this commitment; and

(3) the Yukon Liberal government had an accumulated surplus of at least $56.2 million as of March 31, 2000, enough to provide interim compensation to residents affected while it pursues a final remedy from the appropriate electrical utility; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Liberal government to do what it said it would do, by introducing a supplementary budget in this legislative sitting that sets aside part of the accumulated surplus to establish a compensation fund for Boswell Crescent residents.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) while it was in opposition, the Yukon Liberal Party made a commitment to parents in the Riverdale area of Whitehorse that a Liberal government would construct a new Grey Mountain Primary School; and

(2) neither the throne speech nor the supplementary budget presented in this House on June 5 indicated how the Liberal government intends to honour that commitment; and

(3) as of March 31, 2000, the Liberal government had an accumulated surplus of at least $56.2 million; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Liberal government to live up to its commitments by putting the appropriate resources in its supplementary budget this fall to begin the necessary planning and design work for this school replacement project.

Ms. Netro: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the federal arms legislation, commonly known as Bill C-68, fails to recognize the realities of living and working in northern Canada; and

(2) the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada upholding the constitutionality of this legislation does not resolve the outstanding concerns that northern people have over universal, mandatory gun registration; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to establish an all-party committee of the Yukon Legislative Assembly to work collaboratively with other governments, including Yukon First Nations governments and the leaders of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut governments, to seek a northern exemption from the application of the federal gun control legislation north of 60 degrees.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Yukon Liberal Party is on record supporting the construction of a multi-level health care facility in the community of Watson Lake; and

(2) recent statements by the Minister of Health and Social Services have cast doubt on the commitment of the Yukon Liberal government to make good on this promise to the people of Watson Lake; and

(3) neither the throne speech nor the supplementary budget introduced by the Liberal government indicated how the government intends to honour this commitment; and

(4) the accumulated surplus of at least $56.2 million as of March 31, 2000, is sufficient to allow the government to meet its commitment to the people of Watson Lake; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Liberal government to do what it said it would do by putting the appropriate resources into a supplementary budget to begin planning and design of the promised facility.

Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Liberal government has taken the position that mining is incompatible with wilderness parks and specifically the Tombstone Territorial Park; and

(2) the Liberal government has further taken the position that mineral claims staked within the boundaries of Tombstone Territorial Park by Canadian United Minerals are legitimate claims; and

(3) the granting of a five-year exploration permit to Canadian United Minerals with respect to these claims increases uncertainty about the future status of Tombstone Territorial Park as a mining-free wilderness area; and

(4) this uncertainty has been compounded by recent comments by the Minister of Renewable Resources that failure to negotiate a settlement of these claims would result in a mine in the park; and

(5) while in opposition the Premier stated that the territorial government had a responsibility to buy out these claims; and

(6) as of March 31, 2000, the Liberal government had an accumulated surplus of at least $56.2 million; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Liberal government to live up to its commitments to buy out the existing claims without further delay, and to set aside adequate funding for that purpose in a supplementary budget.

Speaker: If there are no further notices, we'll proceed. Are there any statements by ministers?

Some Hon. Member: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Point of order

Speaker: The hon. Member for Watson Lake, on a point of order.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to point out pursuant to section 11, sub 3 of our Standing Orders in this legislature that a ministerial statement may be a statement of short, factual government policy.

Further, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges made recommendation that a ministerial statement be made only on subjects of significance and primarily for the purpose of announcing a new government policies. I would point out that this statement here today does nothing of the sort. It merely is an overview of the Premier's travel schedule and announces the former NDP government's policies, especially in oil and gas and in the mining sector, and in the protected areas strategy. Mr. Speaker, given the facts, I would ask you to rule on this matter. The Liberals-

Speaker:Order. This statement has not even been given yet.

Mr. Fentie: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I have risen on a point of order.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:No, that's not the way I understand the rules. Sorry.

I will allow the statement to proceed right now and come back with a ruling for the House at a later date.

Investment in Yukon: meetings to promote

Hon. Ms. Duncan:I rise today today to give the House an update on my trip to Calgary and Vancouver to promote investment in the Yukon. As members are aware, last week I attended the World Petroleum Congress in Calgary. This year's forum, which was the first to be hosted in Canada, was attended by all major companies in the oil and gas industry. It was an excellent, international forum for promoting responsible oil and gas development in the Yukon.

While in Calgary, I also had formal meetings with the executives of several companies, including West Coast Energy, TransCanada PipeLines Ltd., Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd., Anderson Exploration, BP Amoco Canada, Atco and Chevron Canada. I also met informally with Premier Ralph Klein.

During these meetings, I provided three clear messages: our strong interest in seeing the Alaska Highway pipeline built through the Yukon; our plans for a second lands sale in the northern Yukon; and our efforts to reach an agreement with the Kaska to reopen the southeast Yukon to exploration.

Point of order

Speaker: The leader of the official opposition on a point of order.

Mr. Harding: I rise to raise a point of order with regard to this ministerial statement. The opposition has been given this statement and we have reviewed it. Now, should we wish to raise a point of order as to its content, the cat is already out of the bag, Mr. Speaker, if we have to wait until after the entire ministerial statement is read. The Premier has already said that she is rising to give an overview of her trip. Those were her exact words; therefore, we would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule at this point that this is not a short, factual statement of new government policy, rather than waiting. Should we wait, it's obvious that the ministerial statement will be delivered, so therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would argue and request your ruling that this is not, indeed, a short, factual statement of new government policy under which our Standing Orders are clear with regard to ministerial statements.

Speaker: The hon. Premier on the point of order.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the ministerial statement is provided to both opposition parties prior to its delivery in the House as a matter of courtesy. And as a matter of courtesy, this has been done in the past, and it is a practice that has been followed by our government.

Had the member reviewed the ministerial statement completely, there are a number of points with respect to government policy that are new information for the member.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: Speaker Robert Bruce provided the House with a ruling on November 24, 1999, on ministerial statements. To assist the House at this time, I'm going to quote a portion of that ruling:

"The ruling covering ministerial statements is to be found in Standing Order 11(3), which, in part, states: 'On Ministerial Statements...a Minister may make a short factual statement of government policy.' The Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges recommended, in October of 1979, 'That Ministerial Statements be made only on subjects of significance and primarily for the purpose of announcing new government policies.' The House concurred in that recommendation.

"A review of the ministerial statements made in this and previous legislatures reveals the obvious point that they are not always on government policy. For example, on November 22, 1999, the Government Leader provided the House with information on the timing of devolution. He did not provide a statement of new government policy, but he did quite properly and appropriately use a ministerial statement to provide the House with important information about the devolution process.

"It is not necessary for the Chair to spend the time of the House outlining the variety of legitimate purposes ministerial statements have been put to. The point is that they have been used in many ways that have not been objected to and that have expanded their use beyond statements of government policy.

"The issue of whether ministerial statements have been used primarily for the purpose of announcing something new is not so easily determined. Ministerial statements of the past can, of course, be found in Hansard. A simple review of those statements, however, does not reveal whether they were new or whether they might have been reannouncements of something already known.

"An important point about the issue of 'newness', which was identified in the ruling of November 8, 1999, is the difficulty when points of order are raised questioning whether a ministerial statement contains enough that is new to justify its being given. Such points of order can only be raised after the ministerial statement has been given. Therefore, if the Chair were to rule a ministerial statement out of order after the fact, it would not be possible to let proceedings continue and opposition members would be denied a chance to respond.

"As members will be aware from the ruling of November 8, 1999, Yukon legislatures since 1979 have chosen not to develop what Deputy Speaker McRobb described as 'a more definite and helpful description of the purpose of ministerial statements.' The Chair, therefore, has given consideration to practices found in this House and in other legislatures across Canada and has found the following to be generally accepted guidelines for ministerial statements and for responses to those statements:

(1) Ministerial statements are to be used to allow a minister to provide the Assembly with information of interest and urgency on government policy or administration when no other proceeding offers a suitable opportunity.

(2) Ministerial statements and the responses to them should be brief, factual and specific.

(3) Ministerial statements and the responses to them should not refer too directly to previous debate in an argumentative manner.

(4) Ministerial statements take place when no motion is before the House and the statements and responses to them, therefore, should not contain partisan debate or argument.

(5) The purpose of ministerial statements, as is set out in Annotation 350 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, is to 'convey information, not to encourage debate.'

"In conclusion, the Chair has found, from a review of the general practices in Yukon and other jurisdictions, that the central feature of ministerial statements is that they should be brief, factual and specific, and that neither the statements nor the responses to them should contain partisan debate or argument. Secondly, it is clear that this and other Houses have accepted that there are legitimate uses of ministerial statements that go beyond the wording of Standing Order 11."

Therefore, the Chair will permit the Premier to continue with this ministerial statement.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to advise the House and the public of the Yukon, properly and appropriately at this point in the forum and in our Legislature's sitting, that while in Calgary attending the World Petroleum Congress recently, I met with West Coast Energy, Trans Canada Pipelines Ltd, Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd, Anderson Exploration, BP Amoco, Atco and Chevron Canada, and I met informally with Premier Klein.

During these meetings, I provided three clear messages with respect to the Government of Yukon's position: our strong interest in seeing the Alaska Highway pipeline built through Yukon, our plans for a second land sale in northern Yukon and our efforts to reach an agreement with the Kaska to reopen the southeast Yukon to exploration.

Mr. Speaker, I was unequivocal in meetings with pipeline companies and BP Amoco. BP Amoco is, of course, a Prudhoe Bay gas producer. The Yukon government will do everything in its power to oppose any northern routes for shipping Prudhoe Bay gas. In our view, pipeline proposals that would see gas shipped through a pipeline off the Yukon's north coast or onshore, either through Ivvavik National Park or central Yukon, are unacceptable.

Any of these routes, which would link to a Mackenzie Valley pipeline, would have to pass through environmentally sensitive areas. They would all require the creation of new transportation corridors. We cannot - we do not - support this.

In our view, the Alaska Highway pipeline project provides the best option to move North Slope gas south. It follows an existing transportation corridor. It avoids the sensitive terrain of northern Alaska and the Yukon, including the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. As such, it would be significantly less damaging to the environment. At the same time, I made it clear to industry that the Yukon requires economic benefits from the pipeline. This government is committed to working hard to ensure Yukoners secure these benefits as we aggressively promote the Alaska Highway route.

I have informally discussed the pipeline project with the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations. We will be undertaking government-to-government discussions on these issues related to the pipeline. I have also had meetings with the Yukon Chamber of Commerce. We will continue to work with all stakeholders to promote the Alaska Highway route to the producers.

As members may be aware, the previous government had committed to the oil and gas industry to have an annual sale of oil and gas rights. While the process started last December, it was not completed prior to the call for the election. We have initiated the second step in that process. We are currently consulting with affected First Nation governments on the areas to be included in the call for nominations. I have made it very clear that this government will follow the process that has been put in place by the working group on the common oil and gas regime. We anticipate that the call for nominations will be sent out at the end of July.

While I was in Calgary, companies were also very interested in our progress in reopening the southeast Yukon to exploration. Last year, this area was closed because of a disagreement.

Any of these routes, which would link to a Mackenzie Valley pipeline, would have to pass through environmentally sensitive areas. They would all require the creation of new transportation corridors. We cannot - we do not - support this.

In our view, the Alaska Highway pipeline project provides the best option to move North Slope gas south. It follows an existing transportation corridor. It avoids the sensitive terrain of northern Alaska and the Yukon, including the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. As such, it would be significantly less damaging to the environment. At the same time, I made it clear to industry that the Yukon requires economic benefits from the pipeline. This government is committed to working hard to ensure Yukoners secure these benefits as we aggressively promote the Alaska Highway route.

I have informally discussed the pipeline project with the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations. We will be undertaking government-to-government discussions on these issues related to the pipeline. I have also had meetings with the Yukon Chamber of Commerce. We will continue to work with all stakeholders to promote the Alaska Highway route to the producers.

As members may be aware, the previous government had committed to the oil and gas industry to have an annual sale of oil and gas rights. While the process started last December, it was not completed prior to the call for the election. We have initiated the second step in that process. We are currently consulting with affected First Nation governments on the areas to be included in the call for nominations. I have made it very clear that this government will follow the process that has been put in place by the working group on the common oil and gas regime. We anticipate that the call for nominations will be sent out at the end of July.

While I was in Calgary, companies were also very interested in our progress in reopening the southeast Yukon to exploration. Last year, this area was closed because of a disagreement.

As members are aware, the Oil and Gas Act requires that consent be obtained from the affected First Nations before activities can take place and can be permanent where no land claims exist.

I made it very clear to industry that oil and gas activity in Yukon must provide economic benefit and opportunities to Yukoners. My officials have been meeting with Kaska representatives, and I'm very pleased about the progress made to date. I'm very hopeful that a final resolution will be reached this week. This would allow exploration activity to resume this year.

Following the meetings in Calgary, I hosted a "Welcome Back" luncheon for mining executives in Vancouver and, afterwards, met with the Yukon Mineral Advisory Board. The "Welcome Back to Yukon" luncheon sparked a great deal of interest. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we had to relocate to accommodate those who had expressed an interest in attending.

My remarks to the mining industry were very clear. There will be no new protected areas in the Yukon until the problems with the current process are addressed. I want to have the mining industry back at the table as a full and willing participant. I am committed to ensuring that proper resource assessments are completed, and that the process is clearly defined in legislation.

I made it clear that improvements will be made to the environmental assessment process through implementation of improvements to the administration of the permitting process and through devolution. I emphasized that there will be no changes to the mining legislation after devolution. I also spoke about the low levels of exploration spending in the Yukon, which is, of course, of particular note to the Yukon. As a result, I am urging the federal Finance minister to take another look at enhancing flow-through share deductions. National leadership on this issue is critical; it is important that members of the House and of the Yukon public be advised of this statement.

I spoke to the mining industry about land claims and, in particular, about the importance of settling the remaining seven claims. This government will be working diligently to this end.

I also told the industry this government understands its strong interest in the security of mineral tenure and its concerns about the uncertainties associated with park creation. I made it clear that this government does not believe that mining activity should take place within parks. At the same time, I assured the industry that the Yukon has always provided for security of mineral tenure. This will not change, even with respect to mineral interests within the Tombstone Territorial Park area.

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to all members of the House that the meetings in Calgary and Vancouver were very worthwhile. I believe industry has received a clear message from this government. The Yukon offers strong prospects for investors in our natural resource sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to respond to this ministerial statement. The evidence before us does show that it's not a ministerial statement or a statement of Liberal government policy, but a confirmation of the Premier's travel schedule and a reiteration of the NDP government's policies in oil and gas and mining

Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that the Premier makes a number of claims which, by the way, are quite confusing, given recent history in this Legislature. A number of these issues that are in the ministerial statement were questions asked here in Question Period and during Committee of the Whole debate where we got absolutely no answers. And when we did finally get something out of the Deputy Premier, it contradicted what the Premier was stating. Whether the Premier was on this trip to promote the Alaska Highway pipeline or, in fact, if it was for land sales. We now find it was for both. I guess the issue there would be the fact that no process has commenced. To date, the Premier's commitment to call for nominations by the end of July seems to be a tall order, and we would ask how the Premier intends to carry that out.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Premier's message - three clear messages to industry - is very interesting because the third one is about reopening southeast Yukon. When did it close? Under the NDP government, for the first time in years, there was actually exploration activity in oil and gas. It's funny, after a couple of months of Liberal government in this territory, the southeast Yukon is now closed.

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, when it comes to certainty for industry, the Premier states that she informed industry that there will be absolutely no new protected areas in the Yukon until the process that's already begun - a review of the strategy - is undertaken and complete. I point out that that process was already begun under the NDP government.

Furthermore, her own Minister of Renewable Resources stated last week, on June 16, that there is, in fact, a protected area ongoing at this time. So much for certainty for industry.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister or the Premier gets back on her feet, there are a number of questions that need answering. Why are we so far behind the Northwest Territories in the promotion of the Alaska Highway pipeline? The Northwest Territories has actively pursued this issue while the Premier sat here and wondered what to do about it. The Premier in this territory, the Premier of the Liberal government, is leading from behind when it comes to the Alaska Highway pipeline.

Furthermore, what is the Liberal position on mining in parks? Given the Tombstone issue, we obviously have a situation that's very unclear and the Liberal position was, at one point during opposition and during the election, very clear: buy out the claims. They have refused to do so to date. So much for certainty in mining in parks.

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, where and when will land sales take place in this territory? Can the Premier answer that?

In short, Mr. Speaker, this was not a ministerial statement. This was simply an announcement of the Premier's travel schedule and policies of the former NDP government.

Mr. Jenkins: I am pleased to respond to this ministerial statement concerning oil and gas development and mining in the Yukon.

It's interesting to note that Yukoners learn more about the positions of this new Liberal government when the Premier is away from the Yukon. That is my first observation.

The Premier stated that she delivered three clear messages to the oil and gas industry while she was in Calgary. The first message was that the Yukon strongly favours the Alaska Highway pipeline route rather than the offshore route.

In her closing comments, I would like the Premier to explain the discrepancy between this message and the one in her news release of June 12, which only referred to the Alaska Highway gas pipeline as an afterthought.

The main purpose of the trip, according to the news release, was to promote oil and gas development in the Yukon, not the pipeline, Mr. Speaker.

This statement has the appearance of damage control because the Northwest Territories government was more effective in promoting the northern route, the Mackenzie Valley route, and this new Liberal government was caught flat-footed. Now the Liberal's spin doctor is trying to make up for some lost ground.

The second clear message involves plans for a second land sale in the northern Yukon. In view of the fact that it is the position of the Liberal Party that there can be no oil and gas development in the northern Yukon, unless it is approved by the Vuntut Gwitchin, I would ask the Premier to table that agreement with the Vuntut Gwitchin in this House now. If there is no agreement, I would like the Premier to explain why she is not living up to her election commitment to do what she said they were going to do.

The third so-called clear message is the soon-to-be-announced agreement with the Kaska to reopen the southeast Yukon to oil and gas exploration.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, this announcement flies in the face of the Liberal Party commitment in the recent election campaign. The Liberal Member for McIntyre-Takhini, now the Minister of Government Services, made it clear that there would be no resource development in southeast Yukon until the Liard First Nation land claim was settled.

Is this yet another example of Liberal candidates making commitments that this government has no intention of honouring, like the continuing care facility in Whitehorse and the multi-level health care facility in Watson Lake? Perhaps the Premier, in a rebuttal, can give a clear message to Yukoners about what election commitments, made by their candidates, they do intend to honour?

Once again, Mr. Speaker, Yukoners are being treated to the spectacle of having this new Liberal government adopt the policies and positions of the previous NDP government, rather than adhere to their own Liberal policies, positions and election commitments.

Let me now turn to the mining sector, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier's "Welcome Back" luncheon for mining executives in Vancouver.

The first clear message she gave to the mining industry was that there would be no new protected areas in the Yukon until the problems with the current strategies are addressed. While I am pleased to see that the Liberal government recognizes that the strategy is fundamentally flawed, I am not convinced that this government has the solutions to fix the problem. Most of the 23 ecoregions have yet to be protected. One of the major problems I foresee with the Liberal plan is delay. The longer the protected areas strategy is delayed, the longer the uncertainty for the mining industry will be maintained.

In a rebuttal, I would ask the Premier to map out some timelines for the protected areas strategy. When will the Yukon protected areas strategy legislation be tabled in this House and when will the full strategy be implemented?

The second clear message was the improvements to the environmental assessment process, through the permitting process and through devolution. While the Premier hasn't made much of the blue book initiatives, she hasn't stated a clear position on the development assessment process legislation, which ultimately will be the mother of all environmental processes in Yukon. Does the Liberal government intend to adopt the ownership of this federal legislation, as the previous NDP government did, or will she leave it in the hands of her federal Liberal friends in Ottawa, and then criticize the final product?

I want to make it clear to the Premier that the mining industry does not see devolution as a positive development. Many of them have concerns about the so-called mirror legislation. They are concerned about the free-entry system to Crown land and how mining claims will be respected.

The Windy Craggy solution proposed by the Yukon Liberals for the buyout of the Canadian United Minerals claims will have a far-reaching impact on the mining industry in Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, I have received reports about the Premier's Vancouver meetings. The Premier was reported to have said that the Minister of DIAND, the Hon....

Speaker: Order please. The member has 30 seconds for wrap-up.

Mr. Jenkins: ...Bob Nault was persona non grata in the Yukon. Can the Premier explain how she is going to be proceeding with the seven outstanding land claims - the most important issue - if she has alienated the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: It's good to be back. I can't refer to the constructive comments from the members opposite, but I will take the opportunity to briefly address the comments.

First of all, with respect to Liberal Government of Yukon policy, the statement regarding the pipeline is clear and unequivocal with respect to the two proposed northern routes. That clear and unequivocal message was one I delivered to the industry in Calgary. It is something that they had not heard before - that clear and unequivocal opposition to any of those two northern routes through that environmentally sensitive area.

With respect to the member's comments on the call for nominations, I made it clear to the industry and to others - to everyone throughout Yukon - that we are supportive and will follow through on the process. In that regard, the process calls for respectful consultation with First Nation governments - respect ensures that there is discussion, there is dialogue and there is listening, and that is what we have undertaken.

The discussions with the Kaska is new information that I provided to this House as well, that officials have been meeting with Kaska representatives. There has been progress made on their discussions, and I'm hopeful that a resolution will be reached on those discussions this week. That would allow exploration activity to resume this year.

With regard to the mining industry, the Member for Klondike has suggested that the mining industry did not appreciate my comments on devolution or the protected areas strategy.

I closed my remarks to the mining industry noting that they had heard many promises from many politicians, and that they had also seen a number of political speeches. On the cover of those political speeches, it invites listeners to check against delivery and I have invited the mining industry to do exactly that.

We'll be speaking with them in the fall, and they're invited to check against delivery to ensure we have lived up to our commitments, and we intend to do just that.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fentie: My question is for the Premier and it's to do with government accountability.

Last week, we witnessed a low point in this Legislature with the Minister of Renewable Resources trying to distance himself from the position that the Liberals have promoted for quite some time and during the election: the construction of an extended care facility in Watson Lake. In fact, the minister even went on to state on the floor of this Legislature that, if that was a commitment made by a Liberal candidate, they made it on their own.

Why does the Premier condone a minister of her Cabinet refusing to acknowledge a position that the Liberals promoted in opposition and during the election?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I should clear up about what the member opposite is saying, so I'd like to set the record straight.

First of all, my colleague, Sue Edelman, discussed new initiatives for seniors during the campaign.

Even if you were to look at the Blues from June 15 - on June 15, the member opposite made the statement here - in one part of it, he says something to do with extended care, and in the other part, he says "multi-level", in the same article. So, I think sometimes we may be talking about two different things.

In her newsletter to her constituents in the spring of 1998, Ms. Edelman made the point that, yes, we have to look at multi-purpose facilities of some sort - dealing with housing facilities, multi-care or independent living for seniors. We know that the previous NDP government did not address these issues. We know that because nothing was done the whole time the NDP was in government. Now we are basically trying to address a situation that has been there for 12 years. This was brought up back in 1988, when the issue of multi-care situations was brought up in the House at that time. So, it's not something that's brand new, and we are committed to looking -

Speaker: Order please. Answer please.

Mr. Fentie: Well, that's an example, Mr. Speaker, of why we asked the Premier today, instead of the minister, because the minister doesn't know what he's talking about.

The facts are that the Liberals have, in the past and during the election, supported and promoted the building of an extended care, multi-level care facility in Watson Lake. Will the Premier now undertake here, in this Legislature, to commit to the fact that they did promote that very facility, and when will they commence construction?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, our promise was to express Yukoners' concerns. We did what we said we would do. The member opposite stands and asks why the Liberals haven't built an extended care facility in Watson Lake, yet while the Liberals were in opposition, we repeatedly relayed Yukoners' concerns about the care of seniors in communities. We continued to ask government if they were willing to address the issue. We now know they deemed it too expensive.

In opposition now, the Member for Watson Lake frankly admits that while he was a member of the NDP government, the seniors of Watson Lake were not worth the money it would take to meet the seniors' needs.

That's right, Mr. Speaker. The elderly have needs, and the Member for Watson Lake admitted last week that those needs made him cringe when he was in government.

Now that he is in the opposition, he wants us to build an extended care that he has put a label on. What makes the member so different now that he is in opposition? His belief is still the same. When the member truly understands what he is talking about, we can then respond with how we are going to try and work with the community. That's the name of what we are all about. We work with the community. We want to know their needs. We want to know what they need, and we will do that.

Mr. Fentie: Well, all I can say is that that is a bunch of rubbish. The Liberals have promoted this fact. The difference between an open and accountable government, such as the NDP had, and the Liberals is this: I, as the representative for Watson Lake and a member of the NDP government, told the seniors in that community that there was no way I could deliver an extended care facility. Instead, we focused on home care - keeping seniors in their homes. We focused on programming, such as handyman and companionship. We increased funding for the Signpost Seniors Society. We did a lot for the seniors in that community; however, the Liberals have played politics on the backs of the seniors and elders in the community of Watson Lake. They promoted building an extended care facility. We did not.

When will the Liberals live up to this commitment and commence planning construction for the facility in Watson Lake, as they promoted they would do?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I have personal ties with seniors. I, as I have said before, am just about in that level of being a senior. We have, while in opposition, promoted seniors. We have established, in the first week of the sitting of this Thirtieth Legislature, that we will continue to promote seniors, and the Yukon government does promote seniors because we believe in seniors.

I stand in support of the press release issued April 6, 2000. Our Liberal platform related expanding the number of nursing care beds for the elderly, the construction of new seniors housing complexes in communities where the need exists, and a commitment to ensuring that funding for senior home care programs are adequately funded.

It may appear to the member opposite that we are committed to building an extended care facility in the community of Watson Lake. It's understandable. The English language is a bit of a difficulty with him. Yes, we have to be aware of the commitment; we have to know what people want. We haven't really had that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to do that. And, basically, we have to look at what people in Watson Lake want. We want to sit down with them; we want to be partners with them. We don't want to do what the NDP did - for example, the trailer park boondoggle. I mean, we don't want to do that. We want to do it right. We want to do our homework with Yukoners; we want to work with Yukoners. Every Yukoner has the ability to recognize the problems that exist in their community, and we want that to. We have ideas, but we don't have them all. The community -

Speaker:Order please. Answer please.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we want to work with communities to find out what their needs are.

Question re: Extended care facility, Watson Lake

Mr. Harding: The Liberal escape from accountability, the fleeing from accountability, continues. Mr. Speaker, the answers of the member opposite are pathetic.

The minister just stood up and said that they want to know what the seniors of Watson Lake want. Well, maybe I'll read him a quote from the Member for Riverdale South, his colleague, from 1998. "A multi-level health care facility has been identified as the number one capital priority of the Town of Watson Lake, and that request has never been acknowledged by the NDP," said Edelman. They just don't seem to be listening to these Yukoners.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know for a fact that the NDP did not promise this facility in Watson Lake, but rather, as a ploy to the seniors in Watson Lake, apparently, the Liberals did. So I ask the Premier, because the Minister of Health and Social Services is incapable of answering: when will she do what she said she was going to do for the seniors of Watson Lake?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: I guess I have to repeat myself. I understood that they had a very capable, clear picture of what we're trying to do, but I guess they don't.

We have here the same Riverdale South, if you want to call it that. It says here, "Watson Lake's number one priority for capital spending is a multi-level care facility." I can read from that, too.

It didn't say anything about an extended care facility here; it said "multi-level". That could be anything. We don't know what multi-care facility means to the people of Watson Lake. Even Isaac Wood, our former candidate, made the same statement. He never said at any time that it would be an extended care facility.

So, I think what we have to look at is the fact that this is not a new problem. This problem that Watson Lake needed some type of facility for their seniors has been with us for 12 years. We want to be part of that solution.

Thank you.

Mr. Harding: The minister is splitting hairs. He's saying, "We didn't promise an extended care facility." He's talking about a multi-level health care facility, but he has given a commitment to neither the seniors nor the elders, other than the commitment that was given during the election campaign.

So, Mr. Speaker, we've got the commitment on video - and we will be happy to provide it to the public and to the members opposite - from the debate where the Liberal candidate promised the seniors and the elders of Watson Lake that particular facility.

So, I'd like to ask the Premier: will she go to Watson Lake within two weeks after this sitting's ending and tell the seniors of Watson Lake, "When the Liberals say something, they do not mean it"?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes, we are aware of the commitment to the community of Watson Lake. They are a very energetic group of people - and that's what we need. They have even developed a design, as I understand, for a facility - a design that they believe will address the concerns of seniors.

Kudos to them for having committed to their goals. I think that's what we want from communities. We want their input. They took the initiative when the NDP government did not support what they wanted.

The spirit of dedication is something that the Liberal government can relate to.

We have been dedicated to achieving the best for Yukoners. As a government we have to determine how to give the appropriate care required for seniors. And, really, that's the whole approach to consultation. It's called "honest consultation". It's working with the community, not coming up with the ideas and presenting them to the community and saying that this is what you should have. We want their input, and we want their input from what their knowledge is and where they want to go. I don't know how much more of a commitment we can give, Mr. Speaker. That basically is a commitment that I think most people would appreciate, because we want to be part of the solution, not the problem.

Mr. Harding: The Liberal government is the problem right now. They said they want to work in the spirit of dedication, whatever that means. I suggest to the members opposite that they should start to do what they said they were going to do in the election campaign. The minister just told me that the seniors have done the design. The Liberals very clearly made the promise for a multi-level care facility in Watson Lake to seniors who worked on their campaign, because they believed the Liberals. So I ask them: where are the dollars?

I want to ask the Premier once again: within two weeks of this House rising, will she go to Watson Lake, meet with the MLA for Watson Lake and the seniors of Watson Lake and the elders there and tell those people that when the Liberals make commitments to people, you can't tell whether they were saying it because they meant it or whether they were just saying it to get elected?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the advice of communities. We welcome the advice of our seniors. We are a listening party, not like our NDP predecessors. We like to do our homework with Yukoners. We work with Yukoners. We have the ability to recognize problems. Every Yukoner has the ability to recognize the problems that exist in their communities. We recognize that there are problems associated with senior care within the communities of the Yukon. As I said before, we have ideas, but we don't have all the ideas. I'm not going to commit to going within the next two weeks, but we will be going to Watson Lake. We will be going to every community to basically find out what their needs are. We are committed to that, Mr. Speaker, because we are a party that cares, we are a party that consults honestly, and we are a party that wants to work with the people.

Question re: Takhini Bluffs mobile home park

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation, on Mountainview Place, known as the Takhini Bluffs trailer court.

Now, during the recent election, the MLA for Porter Creek North made a commitment on April 14 that, if elected, a Liberal government would move to free the taxpayers from a commitment to the future of the Takhini Bluffs trailer court. He noted, at the time, that this development had cost taxpayers almost $2 million, and it was a virtual ghost town.

One solution he proposed was to review the cost of withdrawing the lots from the marketplace until needed. The second solution was to try to sell the lots by hiring some fast-talking private sector huckster to try to pawn these lots off on poor, unsuspecting Joe Public.

Can the minister advise the House which solution he has now adopted?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, this government will continue to provide home ownership options to Yukoners. This government will be very concerned with the health and the safety of residents of mobile home parks. The current mobile home strategy is not working and because those facing the highest risks to health and safety are not moving out, the Yukon Housing Corporation will evaluate the mobile home strategy this coming winter.

Mr. Jenkins: I'd like to thank the Liberals for imposing upon us another review of a situation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the Liberals in opposition - especially the Member for Lake Laberge, following the Yukon Party lead - they were very critical of this project.

Can the minister explain how the Yukon taxpayer is going to be free from the commitment of the future of this trailer court if the government accepts the Member for Porter Creek North's first solution about withdrawing the lots until needed?

How will these lots ever be needed in their present form, and how will the taxpayers recoup their almost $2-million investment in this project?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, again I say that we have total confidence in the Yukon Housing Corporation and the goings-on with this Mountainview Place. We would also like to make it known again that the mobile home strategy will be coming this winter.

Mr. Jenkins: How interesting, Mr. Speaker. Before the election, Yukon Housing Corporation was totally incompetent. Now, they have tremendous confidence in the corporation. How can this change overnight? It's amazing what an election does for the Yukon.

Yukon Housing Corporation is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear on this infallible project. Just look at their literature: Mountainview Place, affordable home ownership in a new community. It's a ghost town. How is a smooth-talking huckster going to do better than this?

I would ask the minister if he would go back to the drawing board and re-examine the entire concept. What are the timelines for this review that is being undertaken by Yukon Housing Corporation, and what are its terms of reference? Would the minister kindly table those two items?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, the previous government, again, tabled the Mountainview Place and, again, this government is looking at resolving some of the outstanding issues that have been left sitting there - lots not being open - free, still not being occupied. We are faced again with another previous government development strategy that they somehow saw fit to be the ideal thing for Yukoners.

Again, there will be, upcoming this winter, the mobile home strategy. We, the government, feel very confident in the Yukon Housing Corporation, under the direction of this government, and the goings-on with the Yukon Housing Corporation at this time.

Question re: Heritage branch funding

Mr. Fairclough: During the election, the Liberal Party made many promises to Yukoners. They also made many commitments in their platform. Before and after the election, the Liberals committed to giving heritage adequate funding.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism. In the Liberal platform, the Liberals said that they would increase heritage branch funding. Is the Liberal government still committed to this increase?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. This government does what it says. This increase will come forward. It will be looked at in conjunction with a number of other capital projects or other O&M funding that's going to go into that department. Absolutely, there will be an increase in funding for cultural industries here in the Yukon Territory - absolutely.

Mr. Fairclough: Well, Mr. Speaker, we suspected that would be the answer. I ask the member why it wasn't reflected in this supplementary budget that was put forward by the Liberals. The Liberals, while in opposition, supported heritage, and wanted to see a facility built in Dawson and one built in Old Crow. They also said that they would increase the heritage funding immediately.

The Premier, at an annual convention of the tourism industry, said that her government's dedication to tourism will remain, and said: "We will build upon the past by researching and preserving our historic resources. Consultation with a new territory-wide museum strategy and restoration of the heritage branch funding are not just words from our platform. They are our commitment to you and all Yukoners."

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, they say that they would increase heritage funding immediately. They didn't show it in this -

Speaker: Order please. Question please.

Mr. Fairclough: The Liberals are breaking their promise. Mr. Speaker, when will this new territory-wide museum strategy begin, and when will see an increase in dollars for heritage?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, we're working on the terms of reference for the territory-wide museum strategy as we speak. That is a commitment that this government made. That is a commitment that this government will deliver on.

As to the increase in funding for the heritage branch, it's happening. We're looking at that right now in terms of all the other capital commitments and O&M commitments this government has. There were consistent cuts to that branch over the course of the last four years when the previous NDP government was in power. We are trying to rectify yet another of the NDP's mistakes.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals said they would increase heritage funding immediately. There are $56.2 million in surplus. The Liberals gave prospectors $250,000 and that wasn't even a promise. They promised to increase heritage funding immediately, but they don't seem to follow up on what they say they are going to do.

Will the minister now commit to bringing forward a supplementary in the fall sitting to reflect their promise for more funding in heritage?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, what this government has already said over and over and over again is that the fall supplementary budget will better reflect the aspirations of this government to govern over the next four years. Quite clearly, commitments will be met. That is a commitment that this government has already said they will follow through on. We are going to follow through on not only the consistent cuts that the NDP made to heritage branch funding, but also we will look at a museum strategy. We're already working on the terms of reference for that strategy. We do what we say we will do.

Question re: Boswell Crescent residents, power surge compensation

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation.

On October 31 of last year, there was a wind storm that affected much of the Yukon with power outages and downed trees, and the most damage occurred as a result of a power surge on Boswell Crescent that affected 39 homes, and resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in damage costs.

During the last election, if that means anything, the Member for Riverdale South had promised to residents of Boswell Crescent that, if elected, a Liberal government would seek compensation for affected residents.

So, my question to the minister is, when will this happen?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to answer a question about the hard work done by the Member for Riverdale South, both when she was a member of the opposition and as the Minister of Tourism. She has been and is a strong constituent representative for residents of Boswell Crescent and residents of Riverdale South. The Boswell Crescent energy issue that the member refers to involves more than simply the Yukon Energy Corporation. I can assure the member opposite that the representations by the Member for Riverdale South - the excellent representations on behalf of the Boswell Crescent residents - will certainly be attended to by our government.

Mr. Keenan: Thank you very much for the biography on the Member for Riverdale South, but that is not really the question I asked. I'm quite pleased to hear that there is an allusion to the point that there might be compensation. Can the member opposite tell me how, when and who's going to make the decision? Will it be complete compensation for the people?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Thanks again for enlightening the entire Yukon as to the excellent representations that the Member for Riverdale South has given to her constituents, both in this Legislature and outside it.

In terms of the issue regarding Boswell Crescent and the unfortunate incident last year, there is more, certainly, than the Yukon Energy Corporation involved. This matter has been brought to my attention and is a matter that is under discussion and will be reviewed with all the parties involved.

Mr. Keenan: I guess the real question that should be asked here is, when is a promise a promise? That's the kind of question that should be asked here.

Again, I would like to know if it is going to be full compensation and when it is going to happen. The people have been hanging by their fingernails over there waiting. They've been getting terribly mixed messages from this government. I would like to know when, and if it's going to be for the full amount of compensation that they're asking for. When, Mr. Speaker, is it going to happen?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the real question is just what a darn good representative Riverdale South residents have. That's the real question, right? She is a very good representative, and I'm sure the member is well aware of that.

With respect to the Boswell Crescent issue that was raised by the member, both as a member of opposition and as a member of the government, it's a matter that is not simply the sole issue with respect to the Yukon Energy Corporation. It's a matter that involves other parties, and certainly it is an issue that is of priority to this government. And the moment it has been resolved satisfactorily to everyone, I would be delighted to share that information with the member opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question re: Government appointments

Mr. Harding:The Member for Riverdale South said lots in opposition, but the problem is that, in government, she's not delivering for anybody. We've heard nothing in two months about the all-party committee for boards and committee appointments that the Liberals promised this territory - again, a promise not made by members on this side of the Legislature, but by the Liberals. We hear now that the former Liberal leader is leaving his job as a teacher at a local high school, and the word on the street is that the Liberals are lining up a nice, juicy, plum job for him. I'd like to ask the Premier if she can tell Yukoners if she has any knowledge whether or not the previous Liberal leader will be going to work in a job appointed by the Liberal Cabinet here or in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the member opposite realizes and recognizes that this is a personnel issue and something that really can't be discussed in the House at this time.

Mr. Harding: Another example - I suppose this is confidential, too, like any basic land claims discussion. "Mr. Speaker, don't ask us about the budget, it's the NDP's; don't ask us to live up to our commitments, that was just a candidate." And now we have: "Well, we can't tell you whether we are going to hire the former Liberal leader or not for a political appointment."

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier again: is there a job lined up here that is going to be decided by the Liberal candidate or the Liberal Cabinet or the federal Liberal Cabinet for the former Liberal leader?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, we're not going to speculate on what the Cabinet is proposing to do with people outside the Legislative Assembly at this time.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I smell pork in the air. It's pretty clear from the answers today that there are a number of high-profile Liberals - in the absence of this all-party committee, that the Liberals promised Yukoners that they're not going to live up to - who will receive some nice, juicy appointments. There will be jobs for Liberals who worked hard on the campaigns - except for those people in Watson Lake who were made promises to - the seniors and elders there - and we've now found out have had the Liberals turn their backs on them. We're now finding out that there are some juicy jobs lined up for those good Liberals.

I want to ask the Premier again: will she tell this House if there are any appointments going to be made for the former Liberal Leader by the local Liberal Cabinet for the federal Liberals, that she has any knowledge of?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, again with all due respect to the member opposite, we are not going to be discussing members of the public in this Legislature.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker: We will now proceed to government bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 21, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 21, entitled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Premier that Bill No. 21, entitled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the contents of this bill will not be unfamiliar to the members present or the public. The previous government had announced its intention to table legislation that would introduce several tax measures, to be effective beginning January 1 of this year. During the election campaign, we promised that we would honour those proposed changes to Yukon's tax regime. The tabling of this legislation is that promise fulfilled.

In a competitive market for investment dollars, it is apparent that competitive tax rates are an essential ingredient for success. This does not, of course, mean that one must match the lowest available tax rate of other jurisdictions. There are many, many factors that contribute to economic competitiveness, and tax rates are only one of those factors, albeit an important one.

The trend in Canada and globally is toward less onerous tax rates. Over time, Yukon's rates have moved up in relation to the rest of the country, because others have lowered theirs. An example of this can be seen in our formula financing arrangement, where the perversity factor has declined over the years. The perversity factor is a reflection of the relative tax rates in Yukon vis-à-vis the rest of Canada, and a portion of its decline is attributable to the Canadian national average tax rates being lowered over the last number of years. The Yukon government has recognized this and begun a program of tax reduction initiatives. We will continue this program. The legislation I have tabled is only a first step in the process.

I understand that the proposals embodied in the bill before us today came out of the tax round table. I'd like to thank the members of that group and members of the public for their participation in the round table and the suggestions that they brought forward. To my mind, the round table was an excellent idea, and it's one I intend to adopt and continue in the future.

I look forward to meeting with the group, once I have time and the opportunity.

The reforms contained in the bill that I just presented address several aspects of our tax structure. Firstly, it contains a reduction in the general Yukon personal income tax rate. As Yukoners - and prior to these reductions - our tax rate, which is stated as a percent of the basic federal income tax, payable by a taxpayer, was 50 percent of the basic federal income tax. In other words, upon completing the first portion of their tax calculation on the income tax form, if a Yukon taxpayer owed $1,000 in federal income tax, their Yukon tax would be 50 percent of that figure - $500. Passage of this bill will see that 50-percent rate drop to 49 percent, effective January 1, 2000.

This reduction in taxes amounts to a two-percent decrease in the Yukon personal income tax that will be levied by our government, beginning this tax year, and which, of course, we will all, as individuals, be filling out in our tax forms next year. Yukon taxpayers will be keeping, for their own purposes, a larger portion of their income, which they work so hard to earn.

We are very pleased to be able to propose this measure. It demonstrates a commitment to making the tax system fair and less burdensome to our citizens. At this time, we are not proposing further reductions in income taxes for years beyond the current year. We will be studying the financial picture of the government over the course of the coming months and will announce any additional income tax initiatives in future budget speeches. I believe this to be the prudent course of action to follow; one that will ensure that any further tax relief is, in fact, affordable for our territory.

Another measure contained in this legislation is that which establishes the rate of the tax credit for investments in the Yukon's labour-sponsored venture capital corporation, the fireweed fund. The proposal is that this credit be at a 25-percent rate. This is high in comparison with other jurisdictions in Canada and, as such, should help to ensure the success of this important investment vehicle - an investment vehicle that we, as members of the opposition, promoted and endorsed, and one that I am pleased to see in place upon taking office.

A lack of venture capital has been a problem in the north and in remote locations in Canada. This was, of course, the impetus for the fireweed fund legislation, and we are determined to do all in our power to promote the operation of the fund. We, and I am certain every member present, wish the fireweed fund every success in the future.

The final substantive matter dealt with in this bill is the establishment of a Yukon research and development tax credit, and we are all cognizant, Mr. Speaker, of the importance of research and development to the maintenance of a healthy and vibrant economy in a global marketplace. Research and development spending, properly targeted, can ensure that businesses in the Yukon achieve and retain technological currency with the rest of the global economy.

In addition, there are numerous spinoff impacts as a result of research and development being carried out, and these will be of obvious benefit to the territory. To this end, we are introducing this tax credit. The rate of the credit is being set at 15 percent, and an additional five percent will be available if the research is done in conjunction with Yukon College. To make this credit even more attractive, it will be made refundable.

It is our hope that this credit will, over time, encourage the expansion of R&D activities in the Yukon and make the Yukon and Yukon College an attractive location to carry out such work.

This initiative will help enable Yukon businesses to compete with the best in the world in their area of expertise.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also contains some minor housekeeping matters, but the items I have spoken to comprise significant measures that are being proposed. It's our goal to ensure that Yukoners enjoy fair and competitive tax rates that permit them to benefit from the fruit of their labours and develop diverse and financially sound business enterprises.

This legislation will go some way to achieving that goal and I am pleased to be able to present it to this House.

One of the commitments the Yukon Liberals made during the election was to pass the NDP budget. We did this for one important reason: Yukoners needed certainty. We were hearing on the doorsteps that businesses, NGOs, students and others were worried about what would happen after the election. They were worried, because they had been trying to plan for their summer - the busiest construction and tourism season in our territory.

We made a commitment to Yukoners that we would pass the budget that had been tabled by the previous government. We were not going to be a government that would come in and start tearing up contracts with Yukoners. We were not going to be a government that put businesses and companies at risk by cancelling projects they were counting on. We kept that commitment to Yukoners. We did what we said we would do.

This applies to the tax legislation that I have tabled before the House, because part of that commitment was to provide Yukoners with a tax cut. It's not often that a government can stand in the Legislature and tell the Yukon people that they'll be seeing a real cut to their taxes. Other governments have promised to cut taxes; a Yukon Liberal government is doing it. This tax cut will be of benefit to all Yukoners. It is not targeted at a specific tax range or a specific income level. This is not a phantom tax cut that was promised in the past, but never actually delivered. This tax cut is real. Mr. Speaker, it means a two-percent reduction in the personal income tax that Yukoners will pay. Other governments have talked about it, Mr. Speaker. This government is doing it.

Now, I'm well-aware that members opposite are going to try and criticize the government for this tax cut. They'll say it was their idea and the Liberals opposed it when the NDP introduced it. They will say that it doesn't go far enough. The members opposite will say we should cut taxes more. Well, the members opposite need to remember that they just talked about a tax cut. They introduced the concept of a tax cut just before they called an election.

It's sort of like a carrot hanging out for the voters, Mr. Speaker. Both the Yukon Party and the NDP have had opportunities to cut taxes, and they haven't followed through. This government is cutting taxes, and this government is cutting taxes for all Yukoners. We made this commitment to Yukoners, and we're keeping it.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Now, the members opposite are telling us it isn't enough; we should be matching the NDP's phantom 12-percent tax cut they told Yukoners about at election time. The Yukon Party will say that we should be matching their phantom tax cuts, that they talked to Yukoners about at election time.

Mr. Speaker, we didn't try and buy Yukoners with a tax cut during the election. What we're doing is following through on a commitment we made to pass this budget. This is the only government that is producing a real tax cut for all Yukoners. We are going to be fiscally responsible. The interim leader of the official opposition keeps telling us, "Cut more. Cut more taxes." Well, Mr. Speaker, we don't jeopardize the future of Yukoners by acting in a financially irresponsible manner. We will do what we say we will do, and we will be fiscally prudent and responsible.

As all members of this Legislature are aware, due to the spending patterns of the previous NDP government and the passing of this budget - this budget we committed to Yukoners to pass - the surplus will be down to $14.7 million at the end of the 2001 fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to do what's right for Yukoners. Being responsible with people's money is what's right for Yukoners. And as we have always told them, "We need to check the books." Before we commit to any future tax cuts, we will check the books. If the amount of the surplus is such that a responsible future tax cut can be made, we will do that. We will not make commitments on future tax cuts without knowing exactly what the impact on the Yukon will be. That would not be responsible, and that would not be us.

What is important, Mr. Speaker, is that we're following through on another one of our commitments to Yukoners. I'm urging all members of this Legislature to vote in favour of this bill. This is a bill that will reduce the personal income tax of all Yukoners by two percent for the 2000 taxation year. We are a government that is proud to be able to tell the citizens of this territory that we have cut their taxes and, Mr. Speaker, we didn't do this in an election budget. We did this during the first year, the first six months, the first three months of our mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of this piece of legislation and, again, I would urge all members to vote in favour of this bill.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess I want to begin by reminding the Premier that the NDP, in the budget before the one that they voted against initially at second reading and have now tabled, brought in seven new tax measures. For the first time in the history of the territory, there was actually tax reduction prior to the budget that we put forward in the election year. Seven credits were put forward and implemented and put into law by the previous NDP administration, including the major cut we made to low-income families. We cut their taxes dramatically. That was in the 1999 budget.

Now, of course the Liberals voted against all of those initiatives. It's amazing the revisionist history that the Premier just spilled out on the floor of this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, there are so many weak links in this new Liberal government that it's hard to know which one to start tapping on first - the Premier or any of the ministers. Just pick one.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to remind her that, on the budget and the tax cuts that are contained in the plan, along with the multi-year capital plans, we voted for them at second reading and voted for them at third reading. The members opposite voted against them at second reading, and, miraculously, after the election, became much more enamoured with the tax-cut plan of the NDP, with the exception of the second and third years. Now, my understanding of the plan, as I remember it, is that as of January 1 of this coming year, 2001, there will be an eight-percent reduction in Yukoners' taxes.

I think that's fairly substantial. And I thought that, when we announced a 12-percent plan, it was a pretty modest, reasonable plan - sustainable. At the time, however, the Liberal leader, then in opposition, said that it wasn't enough and that the Liberals would do more. But now we have her standing up with righteous indignation in the name of fiscal responsibility and telling us that it's impossible to make those kind of commitments, even though it was no problem the day after the budget when she was on the radio telling Yukoners the NDP didn't do enough, saying that the tax cut we proposed would only buy Yukoners a tank of gas. Now she's telling Yukoners in government that she has run out of gas on tax cuts, and she's not even prepared to implement that. Liberals say one thing in opposition and do another thing in government - consistently. If there's one thing we've proven in this legislative session, time and time again, every day in Question Period - it's just a free-for-all trying to determine which broken promise and which thing Liberals said they would do that they're not doing, and we will ask about it. The fodder is endless. Our game boards are full of broken promises by Liberals that we have to expose for the public.

Now it appears that the Premier is are still bent on backing out of the tax cuts for Yukoners. I think that's a sad thing, particularly when she played upon them in the election campaign to get elected by saying that the Liberals should do more and would do more. She said that she was going to be big on the tax-cut agenda before the election; now she's hedging. But, Mr. Speaker, she says she can't do it because she has to study the financial position. She just told me last week in this House that, as of March 31, 2000 - the election was on April 17 - the surplus was $56.2 million. Now, on the floor of this legislature, we had another commitment. She said she can't make a commitment to tax cuts. Well, I ask her why they can't make a commitment to tax cuts, but today they did it to more funding for heritage.

Last week, they committed to more funding for highways - big money, big dollars. In the election, they committed to multi-level care facilities in Watson Lake. The week before Question Period, they committed to a kidney dialysis machine and the O&M costs. They've committed to expanding the beds in the continuing care facility. They've given $250,000 more in grants to prospectors.

But, Mr. Speaker, the roulette ball is stopping on tax cuts and the Premier says that she can't make a commitment in the name of fiscal responsibility. Nobody in his or her right mind would buy that hollow argument.

And I'm talking to more and more Yukoners who are completely in shock at the level of incompetence of the members opposite. I know that there are certain people in the media writing articles, trying to teach them how to do their job in a more speedy fashion. But, Mr. Speaker, being in the House and being in government is an acquired skill, but not everybody gets that skill. The Liberal dog just ain't gonna hunt.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Premier though, on bringing forward more NDP initiatives and lauding the initiatives started by the former Government Leader - the tax round table. She's going to continue on, just like she did with the budget, with more NDP policies. I think that's a good move because they were good policies for Yukoners. The labour-sponsored venture capital fund is one that we initiated, created, implemented and brought forward. Now the Premier said, "Well, we brought forward a motion." Big deal - we brought forward 800 motions in this legislative session, and the opposition and the backbenchers have brought forward motions. What actually becomes reality? What becomes reality is what we brought forward legislatively and manoeuvered through the political process and made a reality.

So, because the Liberals tabled a motion, what does it mean? Sweet tweet.

You think because they tabled the motion it was the first time anybody thought of a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation? That's ridiculous. I also want to say with regard to the R&D tax credit, which was another NDP idea, that it is a good idea - an excellent idea. I also want to say, in comment to the Premier, who said that this was the busiest construction season in many years, that this was another good move by the NDP: the continuing care facility, other capital construction projects, and the money we gave the City of Whitehorse for the new pool. An excellent move by the NDP, and I congratulate her for recognizing us for that.

But what is missing from this equation is any notion, other than that the Premier has run out of gas on tax cuts, that they have any of their own ideas. Have they even floated a trial balloon on any tax credits, on any tax cuts or on any new economic initiatives? The Premier is all proud of herself that she had a meeting with some oil and gas companies. Does she think that never happened before? Of course she did. That's her job. Big deal. She met with some mining companies. One hundred people came.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many times we met with a hundred miners. We met with a thousand miners in big rooms, where we talked about mining policies and the blue book we were bringing forward, the initiatives there. We talked about devolution, we talked about land, we talked about all that. And we actually made progress on it. But so far, the Liberals in that area, or in tax cuts, have not produced anything.

She'll get a good response, because people are there to listen. They want to hear. Their agenda is clear. You take YPAS, for example. She has announced a review. I read in the paper that the chamber is fundamentally opposed to earlier interim withdrawal. I'd like to know how she's going to avoid another Tombstone situation then. If she doesn't have immediate interim withdrawal and change the strategy, guess what's going to be staked? Guess. I can just imagine. She's either going to agree with the environmentalists, who want earlier interim withdrawal or she's going to agree with the miners, who are completely opposed. There's no group hug in this one. This is a decision, and I can't wait for the fall, because the clock is ticking on this government already.

A lot of Yukoners are really disappointed already. I mean, I'm shocked at how short the honeymoon has been for the members opposite. Our office is flooded with phone calls from people who are just aghast at the lack of direction - the rudderless ship called the Liberal Party. And today's performance in Question Period was probably among the worst I have ever seen in this House for answering questions. I mean, the floundering of the Health and Social Services minister is going to become legendary, and this was supposedly a shining star for the new Cabinet. Let's see if the vote in the next election is going to be what it was this time in that riding. I can't wait.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talk again about the construction season. It's interesting to note again, on Argus, that we now see the Liberals have once again agreed with Argus. I'm sure we're talking about a political decision here to say that Argus has met the conditions of the agreement, rather than a legal decision, and perhaps, conveniently, a combination of both.

So, here you have the Liberals on one hand saying that it's a busy construction season. A lot of it will take place with regard to Argus, which they campaigned against but are now seemingly completely in favour of. Like the tax cut bill, we have the members opposite saying one thing in opposition and doing something completely different in government.

Now, one of my favourite topics with the Premier - because I really think she actually believes this, which is kind of scary - is that the Liberals cannot sustain the spending patterns of the NDP. Therefore, she and her ministers can commit every day, and, every day in the House, there is new spending on highways, construction projects, heritage and you name it - more money for everything. But then she says on tax cuts, "The buck stops here." Well, it's pretty clear. She's not big on tax cuts. Why? Because it's the NDP agenda.

Also, she's finding out, day by day, as the Minister of Finance, that she can't live up to the commitments she has already made. So, they've tried a new angle, where they are saying to people, "Well, we're not accountable for the budget. We're not accountable for what other candidates said in the election campaign unless they're in this House. As a matter of fact, we're not even accountable for promises made by candidates that are in this House." Witness the Member for Whitehorse Centre and Argus, and other members here, such as the Member for Riverdale South. So now you have small businesses in court, which are waiting for all this to end. Did the Liberals ask for their money back from Argus and the city? No. They are in support of the project, then brag about the construction and what's going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals can't have it both ways. They can't talk about NDP spending, with the big surplus they have left, and then spend more. Surely, as the Premier admitted, if the level of spending of the NDP, which was reasonable, can't be sustained, she's right when she says that the Liberal spending can't be sustained, as she did in Committee the week before last, because she has already committed to much more spending in the fall, so she's outspending the NDP. One wonders how she reconciles her pledge to be fiscally responsible, when she argues that the NDP spending can't be sustained. Yet, day by day, more money is being committed by the Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a government about Whitehorse. It is becoming more and more clear to people, such as those in Watson Lake, where they were told, "We will build you this multi-care facility." As far back as 1998, they were promised this by the Liberals. It went on during the campaign. Now, we have the members opposite telling the people of the Yukon that they are not responsible for those commitments.

It is outrageous. Every day - I think there were probably four examples again today, and two or three of them were even new. There were the trailer park bluffs, the position with regard to all-party committees for appointments, and now we have the smell of pork in the air.

Every day, two or three things are brought up in this House that remind people just how much the members opposite said to get elected. They didn't care. They don't seem to have any conscience, Mr. Speaker. It's becoming unbelievable. It was as if the principal secretary whips them all up into a frenzy and says, "You're all right, you're all right. Now don't let those guys get you down in there and just go in there and you give them this and you give them that." And he writes letters to the editor. He's frantically writing letters to the editor. I mean, the skin on these people is obviously shell-thin. It's not even one letter to the editor, and it's off to the races. We've got to respond. We've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's on and on and on. The principal secretary must have told the Member for Riverdale South, "No matter how many times you're proven to not do what you say you're going to do, stand up and say, 'The Liberals do what they say they're going to do.'" She didn't even quite get that right, even though it was probably written out for her.

But, do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Yukoners don't believe it. I have more and more people coming up and saying, "My God, what have we done? Why did we put a completely inexperienced, rudderless ship in charge of this territory?"

I know the Premier was proud of herself, coming back from Calgary. She has now taken a position for land sales in July's call for nominations. I think that's very interesting. I think it's very interesting. Has she told the Porcupine Caribou Management Board? Has she told the local environmental community, after committing to more consultation? The Liberals committed to more consultation before the election, before they moved into any further land sales.

They also said that they'd work on more protected areas before they'd do any more land sales, and now we find out that any new protected areas are going to have to wait until after the review, but the land sales are going to go ahead. I think they've got some explaining to do to Yukoners.

I know long-time New Democrats who voted Liberal because they thought and they actually believed - and I told them they were wrong - that the Liberals weren't going to do any more land sales in northern Yukon. Mr. Speaker, I saw that one coming a hundred miles away.

One trip to Calgary, and the Premier comes back and announces she's doing a land sale. I knew that was going to happen, because what else is she going to say down there? "Sorry, we left Andersons stranded up there, and Northern Cross. They bid $20 million and there's no infrastructure there and there's only one land sale. We're going to have to wait three or four years to have another one?" I don't think so. But it's a choice the Liberals made.

I almost called another point of order, because I listened to your second ruling, Mr. Speaker, and you said the ministerial statement, under your new rules, should not provoke political debate. Well, the comments she attributed to the NDP do just that, because they are partisan. They are political and they're not accurate. There was no Cabinet decision to proceed with any other land sale in the north Yukon. We wanted a mandate from the people before we did that.

So, the Liberals proceed to another land sale in north Yukon. That's a choice they're making, and they have to be accountable for it. So, we will hold them to what they said.

Mr. Speaker, I remember that in Committee of the Whole, the one time I actually got the Liberals to take a position on anything, they said they would not proceed with land sales in north Yukon. It was the only unequivocal statement the Premier ever made when she was in opposition - before Vuntut Gwitchin agreed. And we have got the Hansard.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: Development - she says now it's development. Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed the Hansard and we feel very confident that the minister is doing a reversal here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we're not saying there shouldn't be more land sales and we're not saying that the wishes of the people who are interested in protecting the 10-02 lands shouldn't be respected. The Premier is going to have to make the decision, and I look forward to watching that debate occur.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me just say once again that this is an excellent NDP initiative. I think the tax cuts are an excellent NDP initiative. I think the R&D credit is an excellent initiative. I think labour-sponsored venture capital is an excellent initiative. What more can we do but vote for this bill because it's ours, and ask the Liberals to come up with some of their own ideas to help stimulate the economy, and ask the Liberals, should they be so gracious, to continue on with our tax-cut agenda that we proposed, because they told Yukoners they would even do more. So all we are asking is for them to do what they said they were going to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kent: I rise today on behalf of my Riverside constituents to express my pleasure with the personal income tax rate decrease announced in this bill.

This Liberal tax cut of two percent will benefit everyone and does not discriminate in any way. Seniors and young people, First Nation people and non-First Nation people, lower income families as well as higher income families will all benefit. It is truly a tax break across the board. This Liberal tax cut is a positive initiative in increasing the amount of disposable income for all Yukon taxpayers, a fact that all Yukoners can appreciate.

Thank you very much.

Mr. McLarnon: I'm pleased to be able to talk on taxes today and give my own personal perspective on what happened during the election. During the election, we had the NDP government stand up, propose a tax break, put it to the vote, discuss it in the House and then never vote on it. They made it an election issue. They brought it to the front, to the Yukon, for Yukoners to judge them. The Yukon expected, no matter what, since the idea was on the table, that it be offered to provide certainty.

The Liberal Party adopted that we would at least adopt the two-percent tax break. It said two parties are offering the two-percent cut. I truly believe the constituents in my riding chose the one party that would make sure it delivered the two percent.

Now, tax cuts are positive for my riding, especially in the downtown area. Two percent means that there will be two percent more money on the street, which means two percent more business for the small businesses in the downtown area, which means that we'll probably see a two-percent rise in parking, which means that it will go right to the city to help clean our streets, keep the downtown core as it has traditionally been - a place for small business and for people who need every cent they can get.

So, I compliment the NDP for bringing the bill forward. I wish they had passed it earlier. And I compliment my government leader for sticking to the commitment to give the people in my riding and constituency more certainty.

I actually look at it, with the amount of money a two-percent increase in downtown businesses will bring, that this may be the best economic proposal the NDP has put forward in four years. I would ask the members opposite to stop holding the Yukon people hostage with their best idea, because if they are going to leave one stamp on the territory that we do not have to fix, it will be this one. I would ask that when this comes up for debate in Committee of the Whole that the members would allow this to proceed, so that we can allow Yukoners to get on with their business and understand that they can certainly count on two percent more money in their pockets.

I would ask the members to understand that my constituency and the people in my riding are watching the opposition - not us - on this. They understand that this should go through the House smoothly; that it should go through the House without controversy or filibuster. It should go through the House with little more than the attention it deserves for being a credible step forward.

The focus is on the principle of why we are here today, and that was that the NDP chose to hold the Yukon public hostage with their election. Why the Liberal Party is here today on this side of the House is because when we said we would deliver on the two-percent tax cut, that was good enough for the voters of my riding and our territory.

The Member for Faro has asked us to focus on reality. Well, in legislation, this is about as real as you get. This proposal brings into reality the ethereal economics of the NDP and finally focuses on the one good idea that they had throughout to create more money in the small business pockets of this territory.

I would like to thank the minister and my Premier for proposing this to make sure this is on the agenda. I'd like to thank the members opposite in advance for their speedy passage of this bill through the House, and I'd like to now turn over the floor to the member opposite.

Mr. Jenkins:Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us today is very interesting when you look at it from the Liberal standpoint - what the Liberals have said previously in opposition, and what they're stating by presenting and tabling this bill in this House at this juncture. The Liberals could easily have afforded a 10-percent tax cut right off the bat, but they didn't. That was in spite of their commitment to tax reductions. Members will recall that the Yukon Liberals, during the election, committed to the NDP budget, including the proposed tax cut of two percent within the previous NDP government's budget.

Now, that's what the campaign promise was from the Liberals. Well, in spite of that commitment, the act before members today states that the government will establish the new rates of Yukon income tax for the 2000 taxation year and subsequent taxation years. That's quite a difference from what was in the previous NDP budget and what is before us today, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure that the Premier could explain this rather blatant discrepancy between what was said before the election and what this government is proposing today. Again, we have a very glaring example. This Liberal government is failing to do what they say they're going to do.

Now, let's just look at what was proposed, Mr. Speaker. When you have a reduction, every one-percent reduction in personal income tax translates into a reduction or a loss of three-quarters of a million dollars. You start looking at that and start analyzing the budget of the Yukon. You start looking at things like the perversity factor. I'm sure that the Premier will explain in great detail the intricacies of the perversity factor and the impact it has on the money flowing to the Government of Yukon in due course.

But, because of declining tax rates in other jurisdictions in Canada, what occurs is our position - the Yukon's position on the average scale across Canada - increases, which impacts on the perversity factor, which then impacts on the flow of money to the Government of Yukon.

In some respects, it can be called failsafe. In some respects, it hurts us. But this perversity factor, if you want to go back four years, was around $1.60 or $1.56, Mr. Speaker. When we last explored it, when the NDP were in government and they tabled the budget this spring, it was down to $1.02. Now, that in itself doesn't sound like quite a change, but the bottom line is that it puts $40 million more into the Yukon coffers than what was there previously. So, by keeping the tax rate artificially high, the perversity factor impacts considerably on federal government transfer payments to the Yukon.

Now, it's not something that everyone will get their heads around very, very quickly, given the tremendous briefings that I know the new Liberal government has gone through to date and their demonstrated ability to answer questions in this House as a consequence of those briefings, but I'm hoping that they'll have an opportunity to analyze, in great detail, the heart of the whole financial transfer system between the federal government and the Yukon government.

Mr. Speaker, we have virtually come to totally rely on the federal government for our O&M and capital dollars, and, in some respects, the capital dollars were also reliant on the United States of America for their transfer payments from U.S. to Canada to Yukon for the construction of the Shakwak project.

So our dependence on the outside governments has increased alarmingly, but in order to have tax cuts - which we should be having, Mr. Speaker - we have to grow the economy. We have to grow the economy to make up for those tax reductions. That can be done by providing certainty in the oil and gas sector and in the mining sector, and also in the forestry sector. But, in order to provide certainty in the resource sector, we go right around the circle and we come back to the impediments, and the impediments remain exactly today what they were four years ago - the settlement of the Yukon Indian land claims. There are seven remaining to be settled, Mr. Speaker, of which four are hung up on the federal government's position with respect to taxation and loan repayments for negotiating purposes.

Given the wonderful relationship between the Yukon Liberals and the federal Liberals and the Premier's presentation at the mining get-together in Vancouver at one of the meetings - in which she clearly indicated that Mr. Nault is persona non grata in the Yukon and that she wouldn't be welcoming him back - I'm sure Minister Nault will not be the guest speaker at the welcome-back-to-the-Yukon conference that the Liberals are going to host, unless there's a complete reversal in his attitude toward Yukon First Nations.

I don't see that happening. I don't see that happening at all. Perhaps after the next federal election, when there is a new government in Ottawa and a new Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, we might have a little bit of certainty in that portfolio.

Let's look back, Mr. Speaker, to when the Liberals were in opposition and to what they said with respect to the NDP budget that was tabled this spring. The Liberals stated categorically at that time that the NDP spending cannot be sustained - interesting. The NDP platform was one of a firm tax reduction. The Liberals said they were going to propose the same tax reduction.

Now, the Liberals have a clear mandate, and what do we see? Well, I guess the NDP budget couldn't be sustained - that level of spending - so the Liberals are already increasing it. They are increasing it, in spite of their position that the NDP were, I guess, basically fat cats on the block. I don't know. There's a flip-flop if you could ever have one.

When we look at this bill before us - the proposed tax cut of two percent within the previous NDP budget, which, we were told, the Liberals were going to move forward with, and in spite of that commitment, the act before us today only establishes new rates of Yukon income tax for 2000 and subsequent years. We had a clear road map under the NDP, which the Liberals campaigned on adopting.

They haven't done it, Mr. Speaker. They've changed their position once again. I wonder why.

The Liberals, during the election campaign, went on at great length to say that we could have a busy construction season if we had more money for highways. Well, where is it in this budget? I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it in the supplementary. It just isn't there.

The Liberals went on at great length to say that they will start the multi-level health care facility project in Watson Lake. It's not in the supplementary budget. It isn't anywhere. In fact, the Liberal government of the day is backing off and hiding so far back down the road that you probably couldn't find many people in their caucus who would even identify with that issue being an election issue. It's just well and good that it's extremely well-documented and it's actually on videotape.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on and on about the flip-flops of this Liberal government, but this one glaring issue is certainly a testimony to their limited abilities at analyzing a financial situation and doing what is best for Yukon and Yukoners.

A tax cut in the personal income tax area would benefit those working. It will not benefit those who don't have incomes. It will not do that, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, more and more Yukoners are having to leave the Yukon, find work elsewhere, and they're managing to do that. Alberta, Ontario, Northwest Territories and many other jurisdictions in Canada are receiving our tradespeople and our skilled workforce, and they're enjoying the tax reductions that are an indicator of how those respective provinces got their economies back up and rolling again, like Alberta, like Ontario. And it can be done here, Mr. Speaker, but it's not going to be done with a wishy-washy approach such as we have before us today.

It would be nice if, for once, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals did what they said they were going to do. They certainly haven't adopted the NDP position or their budget in this respect, and they had an opportunity to enhance that position, enhance the personal income tax cuts, probably even look at some other taxes that Yukoners have on their backs that could be reduced or eliminated. But, no, I guess, sit back, take what the Premier deems to be the high road, laugh - but she's missed the whole point of the exercise. The exercise is to get the economy of the Yukon back on track to provide some certainty to the main drivers of our economy, and grow the economy, attract new investment, and attract new people for the added work that we're going to be having here.

But what are we doing? We see a government that is probably not doing anything for the last remaining viable industry - the visitor industry. The main drivers of our visitor industry are the transportation corridors. We have the Taylor Highway closed for three days. I bet the Premier or the Minister of Tourism didn't make one phone call to the Governor of the State of Alaska to ask, "Hey, can you put a little thrust on this and get that highway opened?" I don't even think the Minister of Community and Transportation Services did anything but confer with her officials. And we have the situation surrounding the airport in Dawson, where you can land and then you go and park your aircraft over in Mayo and take a bus back to Dawson after you have discharged your passengers because you can't leave your aircraft in Dawson; there isn't any place to park it. Itinerant aircraft bring in a great number of visitors.

So, what do we have? We have the oil and gas industry - in spite of the minister's attendance in Calgary - that's pretty well dormant. We have the mining industry and, in spite of the minister's attendance at a luncheon in Vancouver, we won't see any new initiatives this year. In fact, we'll probably be at an all-time low for mineral production, both precious and base metals and precious and base metal exploration. That's how pathetic it is.

I don't think Anderson is going to entertain any kind of involvement in exploration this winter, unless some additional leases are put on the market, which, when we go around the circle, is heavily dependent on the settlement of the land claims in southeast Yukon and the involvement of the Vuntut Gwitchin in Old Crow.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of potential, but when you look at the Alaska Highway pipeline, I think the Premier is dreaming in technicolour if she sees that as a reality. The product is owned by someone else, and the market is somewhere else. We're just a transportation medium between those two extremes, and it's going to be done in the most cost-effective, environmentally friendly manner. Whether or not it includes the Yukon is speculation. In fact, chances are that that decision, like the price of gold that is set every day -

Speaker: Order please. The member has two minutes for wrap-up.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

That decision about the corridor used for natural gas transportation is a decision that, like the price of gold that is set every working day, will be made in London, England. It won't be made in the Yukon. It will be made by BP, which is the major owner of BP Amoco, Alyeska Pipeline, and all of the Alyeska entities.

It's probably something that the Premier could obtain a briefing on, in order to have a better understanding of what is going on in that area.

I'm disappointed that this government, in spite of so many big promises, is providing so little, when there's so much potential, so much opportunity, and they are not running with a deficit. There's over $55 million in the bank today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: I'd like to preface my remarks today with a comment about the previous member's lack of competence in the Yukon economy. Mr. Speaker, I fully believe that the Yukon economy will rebound, and it will rebound because of a number of programs that are being sponsored by this government to help our economy rebound. Some of those programs work around the pipeline; some of those work around bringing mining back to the Yukon, but the Yukon economy will rebound.

Today, I'm speaking on the issue of tax cuts for Yukon people. Mr. Speaker, we do what we say we will do. We said we would provide a break in personal income tax for Yukoners if the budget would allow for it, and now we're delivering on the promise. The Liberal government delivers on its commitments. We know that the Yukon economy is not doing well now. We also know that Yukoners need to invest within the Yukon. It's simple math - diversification is a good thing. Diversifying our spending habits is healthy for the Yukon. If the minimal income of Yukoners is diversely spent or invested, this can help the Yukon economy. The Yukon Liberal government is providing more disposable income for Yukoners. This tax cut will give Yukoners a little bit more to spend, hopefully within the Yukon. This could promote economic development within the territory - at the local grocery store, at the hardware store, or by attending one of our local festivals. Yukoners can determine the value of this tax break, and, Mr. Speaker, this tax break reflects that Yukon Liberals are committed to rebuilding the economy.

This government is trying to pass a bill to give Yukoners a tax break and put more money in Yukoners' pockets.

Yukoners can feel confident that a Yukon Liberal government will do what they say they will do, and I completely support this bill, just as I did the first time it was tabled within this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out on behalf of my McIntyre-Takhini constituents and all Yukon people about the two-percent tax cut introduced by this government.

For the hard-working people of the Yukon, every little bit of savings helps. This is an important first step for a government that said it would do things differently.

Mr. Speaker, during the past two administrations we had, first, an income tax increase from the Yukon Party, and then a lot of talk with no action from the NDP on income tax reduction.

We promised during the campaign, we would introduce income tax cuts and we did. Once again, this government does what it says it would do. Working families with many expenses - they work hard, but the money is always tight. And believe me, I know this and we know this from personal experience. This tax cut is a strong indication from the government that we are committed to improving the lives of Yukon families by leaving more money in their pockets.

I look forward to reviewing the future spending needs of the government to determine if there will be more tax cuts possible for the hard-working Yukon families.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I rise today to speak on Bill No. 21, entitled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act.

Yukoners have not had a personal income tax cut since this act's inception. There was, however, an increase, as mentioned by my honourable colleague, in the percentage of personal income in 1993 and 1994. We, in this government, believe that, in an age of rising inflation, it is important for Yukoners to be able to access as much of their income as possible.

I am happy to say that this reduction begins in the 2000 taxation year, and I am sure the residents of Riverdale North, as well as all Yukoners, will approve of this tax cut.

As the Premier mentioned earlier, we are also pleased to announce, as part of this act, a research and development tax credit and a fireweed fund tax credit.

I hope all members of this House will join me in approving Bill No. 21, as it is a benefit to all Yukoners.

Ms. Tucker: The Liberal government's tax cut is good news for all Yukoners, including my Mount Lorne constituents, as there are many small, independent businesses in Mount Lorne. Many people in my riding are working hard to survive our present economic downturn and we all hope that this tax cut is a positive step toward helping keep their businesses and, in many cases, keep their homes and to stay within the Yukon.

It is my hope that this tax cut will add impetus to the overall Yukon economy and get more money back into circulation. Tax cuts stimulate all sectors of the economy, and this is one step in getting the economy back into order. We are taking a look at the books, and we are hoping to be able to make further tax cuts down the road which will, again, benefit all Yukoners. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: I rise to support Bill No. 21. This is a very positive step in the future of the Yukon. The Liberal tax reduction is probably one of many that will happen in the future. It is my pleasure to speak on how we as a team - we as a listening party - have once again responded to Yukoners. During the election campaign, we said we would reduce taxes. Now we have announced that we will, in fact, follow through with that promise and reduce personal income taxes, allowing Yukoners to keep a larger portion of their income.

This income tax decrease shows our desire to make the income tax system less arduous to Yukoners. Undoubtedly we all have our priorities on how our hard-earned dollars should be spent. This will allow us some further discretion, Mr. Speaker, on how we can spend, even if this is a small amount to start with.

I fully support the government's desire to relieve the tax burden on Yukoners and realize that many constituents in Porter Creek North will welcome this tax decrease. As my colleagues have said, we have many small businesses here in the Yukon, and they need this break. This should have happened four years ago, and I'm proud to be part of the party and the government who will bring it to fruition. In days of rising costs and already high prices, the tax cut will be a benefit to all, and I would like to encourage Yukoners to be part of that process of delivering government to people. I am proud to be one of the, what I would suggest, tax cutters for the future.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today in support of Bill No. 21, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. The passage of this act will fulfill another Liberal Party campaign commitment. We said we would pass the budget of the previous administration, and we will do that, Mr. Speaker.

We promised that we would look at the books and, if there was sufficient money, we would reduce income taxes. We are doing what we said we would do.

As all Yukoners know, Mr. Speaker, we are coming through a difficult economic time. Over the past three years under the previous NDP government, 10 percent of the Yukon population put their homes on the market and headed south because they couldn't afford to stay here. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, in the first session of a Yukon Liberal government, to be able to pass this act. Many politicians have claimed to want to lower taxes. Few actually do reduce taxes.

We will be criticized for not providing even greater tax reductions. Those who criticize us will be the same people who try to confuse Yukoners with last year's $60-million surplus and the $14 million that will be left after we pass this year's budget. We are demonstrating that we do what we say we will do. Something else we say we will do: if there is sufficient money in subsequent years, we will reduce taxes even further. Any reduction in taxes will be of benefit to my constituents in Lake Laberge, Mr. Speaker. The tax credits contained in Bill No. 21 will also help.

We said we would lower personal income taxes. With this bill, that is what we are doing. I urge all members to support this bill and, by doing so, to demonstrate their support for Yukon families.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I'm delighted that the Member for Mayo-Tatchun has a sense of humour.

I'd like to thank my colleagues for their support for Bill No. 21. I appreciate their confidence in this bill, and I'd like to thank the members opposite for their comments in the spirit for which this Legislature was intended. I appreciate their constructive comments, Mr. Speaker.

A number of comments have been made about commitments during the election campaign, and what exactly was the Liberal commitment on this tax cut. Let me restate it for the members and restate it as I have restated it already. This was a question asked of me as leader of the official opposition in January 2000, and it was a question asked of me during the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce debate. The question: would we institute and live up to the tax cut proposed - never passed but proposed - by the previous government? I stated over and over again throughout the campaign but specifically at those two instances, Mr. Speaker, that we would live up to the initial commitment, which is proposed and in this bill, and, before going