Whitehorse, Yukon

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I rise on behalf of all Members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly to pay tribute to National Aboriginal Day.

Former Governor General Romeo LeBlanc declared June 21 as National Aboriginal Day four years ago to honour First Nations cultures and to recognize the many contributions our first peoples have made to Canada.

In the Yukon, these contributions have been unparalleled in every area imaginable - in politics, the arts, education, environment - the list goes on.

Our First Nations people have worked incredibly hard to preserve the rich cultures and languages that helped make this territory a very special place.

Members of this Legislature join me in feeling proud and blessed that we have had the opportunity to spend our lives in the Yukon surrounded by such a vibrant First Nations presence. Certainly it has shaped me, as it no doubt has shaped all Yukoners in one way or another.

National Aboriginal Day gives us an opportunity to gather, to celebrate, to learn from one another. It doesn't stop there. I encourage all Yukoners to take the opportunity every day to gain a greater understanding of all cultures that make up the Yukon.

I encourage everyone to enjoy the next four days of celebration and to examine the various exhibits and to attend the celebrations held throughout the Yukon.

Günilschish. Mahsi' cho. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Keenan: We, too, would like to rise and pay tribute to National Aboriginal Day. Much is said in terms of our aboriginal people - of course, of which I am one. It's all true - if I can say it - it's all true. This country was built by the aboriginal people and for the aboriginal people, if I could say it in that manner. We'd like to share the land with everybody, and I think that's what makes this country so great. The Premier spoke about our languages and our cultures and I, and our caucus, hope that we'll be able to preserve these and take them as our guiding documents into the future.

I think, most preciously, I would like to mention our elders and our children, because they truly are the future. You look around the Yukon Territory and you see the Alaska Highway and the different highways that we have throughout the Yukon Territory. Originally most of those highways were trails blazed by the aboriginal peoples, so I'm very proud to be of aboriginal ancestry and very proud to be in the House and very proud to be able to stand here today and ask all people to just reach out and hug your aboriginal neighbour today.

Mr. Jenkins: On behalf of the Yukon Party, I also rise to pay tribute to National Aboriginal Day. The best tribute that Yukon can pay on this National Aboriginal Day would be to advance land claims in Yukon. National Aboriginal Day, Mr. Speaker, is a national day of celebration, officially recognized by the Canadian government in 1996. That's when former Governor General Romeo LeBlanc proclaimed June 21 National Aboriginal Day to honour First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, and to recognize the many contributions aboriginal people have made to Canada.

June 21 was chosen because of the cultural significance of the summer solstice and because many aboriginal groups already marked this day as a time to celebrate their heritage. Setting aside a day for aboriginal people marks an important step in the wider recognition of aboriginal people's important place within the fabric of Canada and their ongoing contribution to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the rest of my colleagues to recognize and celebrate today, National Aboriginal Day.

Speaker: Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jenkins:I would like to introduce the former Member for Riverdale North, the next Member of Parliament, the hon. Doug Phillips. I guess he's not honourable any more. I don't know.

I guess he is the new MP for Yukon and the current and recently elected president of the South M'Clintock Association.

Applause

Speaker's statement

Speaker: Before calling for tabling returns and documents, the Chair notes the Premier, when tabling documents yesterday, made a statement about documents which would not be tabled. Members are to restrict themselves to a straightforward description of documents being tabled. If members wish to explain why certain documents are not being tabled, there are other opportunities in the proceedings of this House to do that.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling three documents: a letter to the hon. Ralph Goodale, dated May 30, 2000, respecting the renewal of the Dempster link agreement; a legislative return, which details the Yukon's offshore jurisdiction, which was discussed in Hansard, pages 291 to 293. It is a briefing note outlining background information on Yukon's offshore jurisdiction. The third legislative return is an answer to a question from the interim leader of the official opposition respecting the dates of correspondence and timelines.

Mr. Keenan: I have for tabling the Yukon government's presentation to the CRTC regional hearing. I have also for tabling the presentation to the CRTC by the official opposition.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) physical fitness is an important component of health; and

(2) Yukon people deserve access to the outdoors and facilities, where possible, to pursue physical fitness; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to support the public facilities and programs that enhance physical fitness and promote long and healthy lives for Yukoners.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the NDP were poor fiscal managers in government; and

(2) the previous NDP government recklessly spent down the surplus; and

THAT this House recognizes that

(1) the previous NDP government tabled a deficit budget of $27.5 million for the 2000-01 fiscal year;

(2) the estimated revote of lapses for the 2000-01 fiscal year is $13 million; and

(3) the previous NDP government left an operating surplus of $14.7 million for the 2000-01 fiscal year; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to be prudent fiscal managers and spend money wisely and in the best interests of Yukoners during its mandate.

Mr. Harding: The Liberals tabled our budget and are spending more, but I give notice to the following motion, Mr. Speaker:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) during the recent election campaign, the Yukon Liberals made commitments to increase the wages of workers in private day homes; and

(2) neither the throne speech nor the supplementary budget introduced by the Yukon Liberal government has made any reference as to how the government intends to honour this commitment; and

(3) the Premier has acknowledged the territorial government's finances are in a healthy condition, including an accumulated surplus of more than $56.2 million dollars as of March 31, 2000; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Liberal government to do what it said it would do, by introducing a supplementary budget that provides the necessary resources to the Department of Health and Social Services to increase the wages of private day home workers.

I give notice to the following motion as well, Mr. Speaker:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Yukon Liberal Party made a clear commitment in its election platform to make the settlement of outstanding land claims its top priority; and

(2) the resource sector has confirmed that settlement of these claims is crucial to providing the certainty needed in order to make investment decisions affecting the Yukon; and

(3) the Premier has advanced the position that settlement of the remaining claims is not a difficult resolution; and

(4) recent statements by government members have successively weakened the priority status the Yukon Liberal government has accorded to the settlement of these claims; and

(5) statements by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs have cast considerable doubt over the willingness of the federal government to address the two major federal obstacles to the resolution of outstanding land claims; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to direct the Ministers of Finance and Indian and Northern Affairs to provide federal negotiators with a more constructive mandate that will make a timely resolution to the remaining Yukon First Nations land claims possible in order to create certainty for all Yukon people.

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

THAT Standing Order No. 45 be amended by

(a) adding the following new provision:

"(4) At the commencement of the first session of each Legislature a Standing Committee on Appointments shall be appointed to review and report on appointments proposed by the Executive Council to those boards, commissions, councils and committees identified in the motion appointing the Committee."; and

( b) renumbering the remainder of the Standing Order accordingly.

THAT the government caucus appoint three members, the official opposition appoint two members and the third party appoint one member to the Standing Committee on Appointments; and

THAT the terms of reference of the Committee be as follows:

(1) The Committee may review appointments proposed by the Executive Council to:

(b) the Yukon Energy Corporation Board of Directors,

(c) Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board,

(d) Yukon Lottery Corporation,

(e) Yukon Recreation Advisory Council,

(f) Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board,

(g) Yukon College Board of Governors,

(h)Yukon Electrical Public Utilities Board, and

(2) The Committee may also review such other appointments proposed by the Executive Council as are referred to it by the Executive Council or are referred to it by a separate motion of the Legislative Assembly.

(3) The Committee shall prepare a report within 45 days of receipt of a proposed appointment, and such report shall contain:

(4) The right of the Committee to report on a proposed appointment continues in those cases where the Commissioner in Executive Council or, if applicable, a Minister has found it necessary, due to legal requirements or operational needs, to make an appointment prior to the expiration of the 45-day period.

(5) The Chair of the Committee shall present all reports of the Committee to the Legislative Assembly. If the Legislative Assembly is not sitting at the time a report has been prepared, the Chair shall forward the copy to all Members of the Legislative Assembly and then release the report to the media and the public.

(6) The Committee shall hold its meetings in camera and is empowered to call proposed appointees as witnesses. The Committee may also invite ministers to appear as witnesses.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. McRobb:It's becoming increasingly clear to Yukoners that the Liberals don't do what they say they will do. Each day in this House, more examples of arrogance and evasiveness emerge. Yesterday we heard the Liberals stonewall on the upcoming patronage appointments, then the Premier circumlocuted on her recent comments to mining executives. So much for being open and accountable, Mr. Speaker - another broken promise.

Now, the Premier stated her position in this House on March 9, 1999 that the Liberals would not proceed in developing oil and gas in the winter range of the Porcupine caribou herd until the Vuntut Gwitchin are prepared for it to proceed - are prepared for it to proceed, Mr. Speaker. Should the Vuntut Gwitchin decide it is not prepared for the development to proceed, is the Premier prepared, as she promised, to pull the call for nominations?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I responded to the member opposite's question yesterday. And I further outlined in a legislative return today giving the date when consultation was initiated with First Nation governments.

As the member is well aware, the important process to be followed first and foremost involves respectful consultation. That has been undertaken, and it has started. That has been outlined with time frames for the member opposite in a legislative return today, if the member has forgotten the process that was outlined by the previous government.

Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, the only members in this House who have forgotten anything are the Liberals in their commitment and promise to Yukoners to consult them before they put this process in motion. The horse is out of the barn now and it's too late. If the Vuntut Gwitchin decide they're not ready to proceed, it's too late to stop this process. The Premier did not listen to them. They sent a letter, and they went. That is not respectful consultation. They say one thing and do another. The credibility is very low.

Now, I would like to ask again: will the Liberal government keep its promise and hold off on any oil and gas development until the Vuntut Gwitchin are prepared for it to proceed?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: First and foremost, I would suggest that the Premier's credibility is not low, and I would invite the member to revisit the transcripts of this morning's news reports.

Secondly, I would advise the member opposite that the public process is very, very clear, and it has been undertaken as has been outlined. The first step in the consultation process is to begin discussions with First Nation governments. That has happened.

The member is trying to suggest that I have been down on 5^th Street, southwest Calgary, hawking land sales. That is not what I have done. I have met with industry and advised them that we will continue to follow the existing process and that we will live up to it. I also said that I had initiated the process, as has been outlined, and that we will follow that process. I would invite the member again to revisit that process and have a look at it, because that's what we're doing.

Mr. McRobb: The Premier didn't answer my question. It's sounding more and more like the Liberals promised whatever they could to get elected. So much for being open and accountable, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask again: should the Vuntut Gwitchin decide it is not prepared for the development to proceed, is the Premier prepared - as she promised - to pull the call for nominations?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I would invite the member opposite to revisit the public process that has been outlined. The call for nominations is not until step three in this process. It's a public process that was outlined by the members opposite. It is one of - if not the - most public processes in all of Canada.

This government has a very respectful process. We work with First Nation governments. We work with all governments in the territory and out of this territory. Step two in the process is government-to-government consultation with First Nations. I outlined for the member in a legislative return today that those letters were signed on June 9 and sent to four First Nations: Tetlit Gwitch'in, Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in, Nacho Nyak Dun and the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation.

They weren't sent by snail mail either, if that's the member's next question; they were sent via express to ensure they were delivered. The consultation process has begun. We stated we would conduct respectful negotiations and discussions with First Nations and all governments, and that we would be a government that acted openly and accountably and with respect - that's exactly what we're doing.

Question re: Oil and gas development, public consultation

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting - another question not answered, another promise not kept. It's more and more revealing to Yukoners every day of what this government intends to do in terms of public consultation. They send a letter, and then they go do whatever it is they want to do. They don't wait until they hear back. They didn't hear back from the Vuntut Gwitchin before promoting this to the oil and gas industry. They didn't hear back from the boards and committees before doing it. It's a one-way street.

It is becoming evident, each and every day, Mr. Speaker, that the list of broken promises is getting longer. Can the Premier explain why she didn't live up to her promise to first consult the public and identify conservation goals before offering further land to the oil and gas industry for exploration and development? For her assistance in answering this question, I'd like to highlight that point: before offering further land.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, let me highlight for the member opposite another legislative return and information given to the member opposite and not heard. I have stated the public process. I have outlined it with time frames in the legislative return for the member opposite. I have stated and restated and restated in this Legislature that step two of the public process in this is to begin consultations in a respectful manner with First Nation governments, and that is what we have done.

The review of that input is the second step. Then, and only then, is there a call for nominations. My commitment to the oil and gas industry was that we would follow this process and that we were working in this process toward a second land sale committed to by the members opposite and the previous government.

Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is still not answering the question. Why did they break this promise to first consult, before they offered up this land to the oil industry - to first consult? We're not getting an answer to that question.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I mentioned - and I will repeat it again today - that 82 percent of the Liberals promised, including the Premier herself, to consult with the public on identifying conservation goals before offering more land to the oil and gas industry. In reviewing the environmental questionnaire, I have discovered that all six Cabinet ministers felt the same way. They all agree to consult before offering the land up.

I would like to ask the Premier again: should the Vuntut Gwitchin decide they are not prepared for the development to proceed, is the Premier prepared, as she promised, to pull the call for nominations?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kluane is not listening to the answers.

First of all, the second step in this process is consultations in a respectful manner with First Nations. The member is trying to suggest that we somehow bypassed the duly elected governments of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, the Nacho Nyak Dun First Nation, the Tetlit Gwich'in First Nation and the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation, that we somehow bypassed and were disrespectful of those duly elected governments. The first step is consultation and initiating consultation in a respectful manner with First Nation governments. That is the step we have taken. That's what we're doing: consultation.

The member is suggesting, yet again, that somehow I or some member of this government have been down in Calgary selling land for oil and gas. That is not the case. What we have stated is that we will follow up on commitments made by previous governments -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: If the members are interested in the answer, I would be delighted to provide it for them. We have said that we will follow the process as outlined and that we are working within this process. It is a common oil and gas regime that is well-understood by industry -

Speaker: Order please. Will the member please conclude her answer.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, another question unanswered, another promise broken. This issue is not about process. It's about keeping your promises. It's about doing what you said you would do. It's about the Liberals living up to their promises to Yukoners. Obviously they're not doing that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind her about the role of some of the boards and councils established under the umbrella final agreement that are charged with the responsibility to ensure the protection of Yukon's resources. Why didn't the government consult them before announcing plans to call for nominations in a month? I'm not asking her for the date of the letter she sent. I want to know about their consultation with those boards and councils and what they said about her going to Calgary, promoting this oil and gas land before determining these things in consultation with them.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to the umbrella final agreement. The member knows full well that giving life and meaning to the umbrella final agreement means working with First Nation governments in a respectful manner. The respectful manner, as laid out for the development of oil and gas and for land sales, is for the second step in that process to be consultation with duly elected First Nation governments, such as the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, the Tetlit Gwich'in First Nation, the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation and the Nacho Nyak Dun. Those are the First Nations I have written to, and those letters have been sent. The process is clearly outlined in the legislative return that has been tabled for the member opposite, and I would invite the member opposite to take a good look at it. It's one of the best common oil and gas regime pieces of legislation. The member opposite stood in this House touting it over and over again, and we're following it.

Question re: Alcohol and drug services, creation of independent commission

Mr. Jenkins:I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. During the recent election campaign, the Liberals promised to create an independent alcohol and drug abuse commission to be the sole agency responsible for funding alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment throughout the Yukon.

Now in general debate in Committee of the Whole on June 15, the Acting Premier stated that the independent alcohol and drug abuse commission is a new project that would require legislative authority. In view of this statement and the fact that this commission is to be independent and the sole agency for funding alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment throughout the territory, can the minister advise the House if he will be tabling in this House an alcohol and drug abuse commission act similar in nature to the Workers' Compensation Act, which was also established as an independent agency?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has asked a question about the drug and alcohol commission. We are exploring our options. We did state that as one of our points in our platform: that we would look at alternatives for servicing the needs of alcohol and drug problems in our territory. We have had many discussions right now with many of the stakeholders, but we are just in the preliminary stages with trying to look at where we want to go with our whole process and our commitment.

Mr. Jenkins: So, there is a commitment and they are proceeding with it. That's what I concluded from the remarks made by the minister. Can the minister advise the House how the current staff in the alcohol and drug services branch will fit into the creation of an independent commission with the sole responsibility for alcohol and drug abuse? Will they be offered positions in this new agency, laid off, terminated, privatized? Are there any negotiations ongoing with the Yukon Employees Union?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: We will respect all the statutes that are in place. We do not make such comments about privatizing. I don't know where they are coming from. They may privatize, we will not. That is not what we are all about. What we are going to do is, number one, look at where we are at. The services that we have now are providing a need. We believe there are more needs out there. We are going to take some time in coming together as to how we are going to assess these needs and then we are going to move from there. And we are going to do that with Yukoners; this is not going to be a unilateral decision made from Cabinet or from caucus. It is working with people. It is looking at their resources and it's looking at their strengths. We do want to make the right decision here because we're looking at a 10-year plan, not a two- or three-year plan.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, the minister summed it up quite succinctly: the services out there are providing a need. He's absolutely correct; there's a need for services. Now, it may be that the creation of this independent alcohol and drug abuse commission is going to be effective and beneficial - but 10 years, when you only have a four-year mandate and you are part way into it and it doesn't look like anything is going to change for the first year. How is this commission going to work? How will it deal with the problems we are facing - FAS/FAE. Is the minister saying that the employees in the current drug and alcohol services are incapable of dealing with the problems that we have and that the work can be performed better under the guise of this new agency? Is that what he's saying? Or just where are we headed in this 10-year program?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: We're not like the opposition; we're not like when they were the former government. They tended to work on two- and three-year plans. We are working on a long-range plan that is good for Yukoners, Mr. Speaker. And in my experience here in the territory, it has always been that we no longer can afford to look at the short-term plans, because quite often they don't work. What we have to do is look at the long range.

And, Mr. Speaker, what we are going to do is touch base with those jurisdictions that already have this type of a plan in place. We're going to draw on their resources, and we are going to draw on the resources of Yukoners because we have a lot of experience in this area. We have a lot of employees who work very hard in the areas of alcohol and drugs. We want to utilize their resources. We very much believe that Yukoners can offer and deliver a program that can be first-rate. I have mentioned this many times before. This is not a big bureaucracy. It's only big because we want to make it that way. And I am committed to working with Yukoners; I am committed to coming up with a program that all Yukoners will embrace.

Question re: Legal aid funding

Ms. Netro: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice has been asked about legal aid funding several times in this House, and she has been unable to tell us what her priorities are. The previous government started a comprehensive review of the legal aid system and added money to the budget to support civil legal aid for families in need. I ask the minister to tell this House: does she support additional civil legal aid funding for single parent families, who have been denied access to the legal system?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, I support the completion of the review before we make any further decisions about legal aid.

Ms. Netro: The first time I asked the minister about increasing legal aid funding, she said that there is a question about whether anything can be afforded at this point. The Premier has acknowledged there was a $56.2-million surplus when the Liberals took office, so I cannot understand why the Liberal government has not put more legal aid funding into their supplementary budget - something they said was needed when they were in opposition. When will this Liberal government bring forward a supplementary budget for legal aid funding, which they said they would do?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly in the past, the legal aid program is under review. That review began in February under the previous administration, and I expect that a final report will be available within the next few weeks, perhaps in early July. I'm looking forward to receiving that report, but I cannot promise anything without first studying the recommendations.

I say again that the surplus the members opposite talk about is a figment of their imagination. It is a $14-million surplus.

Ms. Netro: Mr. Speaker, a review is too late for many single parent families in the Yukon. The judiciary and the Canadian Bar Association have publicly stated that legal aid funding needs to be increased. The NDP government increased legal aid funding. The Liberal opposition said the additional money wasn't enough. Why did the Liberals tell the government and the public that they would increase legal aid funding and not put any more money for legal aid in their supplementary budget?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, the government's priority for legal aid is to ensure that a long-term solution is in place that addresses the key issues facing this service and meets the needs of all Yukon people. I will not make any commitments on the legal aid program until I have studied the report.

Question re: Pioneer utility grant increase

Mr. Keenan: My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. A number of seniors and elders in my riding are very concerned about the rising cost of heating fuel and propane. This minister has used a lot of words to describe the valuable contribution of seniors and how we should help them to stay in their homes as long as possible. Will the minister put those words into practice by immediately raising the pioneer utility grant to help the seniors and elders meet the increased costs of heating their homes?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: I'm not sure that's a question for me. I'm not connected to heat and all those kinds of things that he is referring to, but I definitely, as I have said in previous -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Are you finished?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes.

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I'm absolutely astounded, and I have seen some moments in this Legislature, but for a minister to stand and not even know who should be answering the question on that side shows very much a lack of leadership.

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

Point of order

Speaker: The government House leader, on a point of order.

Ms. Tucker: I'd like to refer to the specific rules and Addendum No. 1 on guidelines for Question Period. "A brief preamble will be allowed in the case of the main question and a one-sentence preamble will be allowed in the case of each supplementary question."

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, this is not a point of order at all. The member, in his preamble, was doing exactly as the rules set out for us to do. We have been doing this for the last nine days and today in this Legislature the same way, and this is simply not a point of order, just a rude interruption.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: Although it's true that the rules are such that allow members to give a brief preamble, it hasn't been followed in the House for some time. Isn't that correct? So, at this time, without some guidelines, I'm not prepared to rule that the point of order is valid.

Mr. Keenan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for those wise words.

Mr. Speaker, let me direct my question, then, to the Premier if the Minister of Health and Social Services does not know his department. I'll just continue to direction my questions to the Premier.

During the election campaign, both opposition parties promised to increase the pioneer utility grant by 25 percent. The Liberals did try to play catch-up, without making any real commitment, though. Let me quote the promise made by the Member for Riverdale South, and it's still on the Liberal Party Web site, "We're committed to making sure that seniors have the services they need, like pharmacare and the pioneer utility grant. These are essential services for our seniors and we will support them."

Will the Premier now, on behalf of her government, demonstrate their support for this essential service by increasing the pioneer utility grant in time for this winter?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: We care about seniors. We have spent a lot of the last nine days talking about our commitment to seniors. I think, basically, we want to do what is right for Yukoners. We've made that point many times before; they are our guides and actually, the member opposite has made that point many times himself. So we would basically want to work as a party, as a government, to ensure that we support our seniors in whatever way we can.

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, here we go again; you say one thing to get elected and then when you become the government you have an absolute lack of clarity in what leadership is really all about. There is a $250,000 for grants to prospectors - nothing for seniors. This minister has already reneged on the Liberal commitment to seniors in Watson Lake, and now what's he doing to all the other seniors and elders who are worried about being able to stay in their own homes? Mr. Speaker, there's $56.2 million in the coffers; we don't need excuses. I'd like to ask the minister: why doesn't he bring forth a supplementary budget to raise the pioneer utility grant by at least 25 percent while this House is still sitting so that the seniors might have some cash in their pockets for this coming winter season? Will the minister please do that?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: I have listened to the member opposite; he has made his point. We care about seniors. I am pleased that you do underline that every time you mention it. I'm really happy that you support where the Yukon Liberal government is. We believe in seniors; we believe in consultation; we believe in people. It's much like when they were in power; I didn't ever see where they had increased anything, other than use it for electioneering purposes. Here we are, trying to pass the budget - their budget - and they are not able to get on with it. So, Mr. Speaker, who really cares about Yukoners? It basically has to be the government of the day, because we want to see this budget through. We want to make sure there is certainty in our economy. I think the important part about it, we keep hearing this sing-song about the $60 million. They're trying to make people believe there is a $60-million surplus. It's their books that tell us there is $14.7 million - their books.

Now, we've taken on the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and we're making sure that the public knows, that every Yukoner knows, that what we're dealing with is their budget, and we're trying to follow through on it.

Question re: FAS/FAE, funding for services

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, what bafflegab from the Health and Social Services minister - we're not getting any answers whatsoever, just talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. It's really difficult to understand - after the minister is done and you read what he said - what he is actually talking about. They are all hollow, empty words about how much he cares, but certainly, actions speak louder than words.

I want to ask about FAS/FAE. The Liberals, time and time again, in stacks of press releases, told Yukoners that there was a need for more resources in FAS/FAE to fight the terrible influence in the communities of alcohol and drug abuse and what it's doing to the future of this territory. Yet, in the supplementary budget they brought forward, there was $250,000 for prospector grants, but nothing to increase FAS/FAE funding. Will the minister bring in a supplementary budget this session to put more money - put his money where his mouth is - for FAS/FAE services in this territory?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Once again, we hear the hollow, empty vessels of criticism. When they were in government, they didn't do any of those things. They denied there was a problem with FAS/FAE for at least two and a half years, until it was firmly resounded by the opposition that we had a problem. That's on record. That is shameful that they did not recognize that we had a problem.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes, sir, we will. We will work with those people who are most directly affected. We have met with many of our stakeholders already to discuss ways and means of trying to solve this issue, and we are continuing to do that. As I said before, consultation is the key word here, and it's called being honest with Yukoners.

Mr. Harding: Yes, we have seen how the Premier does consultation. They send a letter and then make an announcement that they're completely locked into. We've seen how they've done consultation with the seniors and elders in Watson Lake, where they promise a new extended or multi-level care facility there, and then, in the first two months of government, go completely off the rails on that promise. They cut their candidates loose, saying that they're not accountable for them.

They bring in an NDP budget and then say that they are not accountable for that. Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. In the case of this minister, we get nothing but hollow answers.

Will he bring in a supplementary budget to increase the funding for FAS/FAE services in this territory, which they promised to Yukoners and about which they told Yukoners they cared when they were sitting in opposition.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, you can believe that in the future this government will respond to the needs of FAS and FAE. We believe in the needs of our people.

As I said earlier - I guess I have to repeat it again - they had three and a half years to do something, and they only did something in their last year. I don't understand why they want us to do something in two weeks. We can't fix all their broken promises.

I think it's important, Mr. Speaker - they constantly deride the rest of us because of our positive initiatives. They expect us to do, in two and a half weeks, what they couldn't do in three and a half years. I can't believe it. But then, again, I guess if you're looking for camera time, that's what you do.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, you got the minister over there, who says, "In the future, we are going to start acting in the best interests of Yukoners." I guess that's what the Liberal slogan was all about when they said, "It's all about the future." Nothing for Yukoners right now, but just wait for the supplementary. This is going to be the messiah of all supplementaries - in the fall. We can hardly wait.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they told the people in this territory that they actually cared about FAS/FAE. They told the people of this territory that they actually cared about the seniors and elders. They called the situation of FAS/FAE a crisis. Yet, what were their funding priorities in the supplementary budget? There was $250,000 more for grants to prospectors and zero for people in need of alcohol and drug services and FAS/FAE services.

Why and how can they reconcile this obvious disregard for this important need and important service in this territory?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: A very good point was just raised. If it is so important to them now, then why wasn't it in their own budget, the budget that they were trying to pass here?

It's very interesting. As I've said many times, we are to fix all of their mistakes, all of their problems, in two and a half weeks. We have been in session here for close to nine days. We have not passed the budget that they submitted earlier, which was in place for 10 days. So we're on this budget for 19 days at this point in time, and they don't want to pass the budget. For some reason they want to hold it up. They're not interested in what Yukoners need. If they wanted the budget to be passed, Mr. Speaker, we would have done it in two days. Instead they're holding the House up; that's exactly what they're doing.

Our commitment to FAS and FAE will be far more than $250,000 that he keeps alluding to, but we are going to plan with our stakeholders, we're going to work with the people who are affected by it, and we're going to develop a plan that will be here for 10 years minimum.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I move that Bill No. 4, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 4, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: This bill will provide spending authority for the departments of government in the event that the main estimates have not cleared the House by July 1. In addition to the warrants that were signed by the Commissioner to cover spending or commitments incurred for the period April 1 to June 30, the present legislation asks for an additional $33.1 million. This will bring the total appropriation authority the government has in hand to $298.1 million. This relatively large sum has not, of course, all been spent, but the government requires appropriations in order to make commitments on contracts that will be paid for in future months.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, you know. We just heard from the Minister of Health and Social Services that they can't get the budget through, they can't bring certainty, but yet here we are debating a bill that provides spending authority to continue on with the budget planning in process. I really don't understand what they're talking about. On day nine, we have seen people absent from this House for whom we have questions, and we have been doing that very methodically, moving through the budget. This provides the spending authority for the members opposite to proceed with the plans in the budget.

The rookie Minister of Health and Social Services over there has been complaining about 19 days debate on a budget. Mr. Speaker, I was in a session in this House for 76 days once, and after nine days, he's standing up and saying, "Let us go, let us go; I want my summer holidays to begin." They have work to do. We're here doing our jobs, and we're moving methodically through this budget. Today there's an interim supply bill that is going to allow the government to have spending authority, and there is a lot that we have to hold the government accountable for. We have seen so many promises fall by the wayside, and it's very clear that -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: I hear the minister saying that he's trying to correct mistakes. I think he should be worrying about trying to correct the mistakes he has already made in two months and start focusing on that, because that's a real problem.

We have some serious weak links opening up in the Cabinet ranks of the Liberal government. The Premier is so embarrassed by the minister that she doesn't let anybody but the principal secretary talk to the local media. He has to answer for all the ministers, because apparently she's afraid that the ministers don't even know how to respond - the accountable, elected ones - so they have to have their principal secretary respond. It's something we have never seen before. The Premier obviously feels that, without a doubt, her ministers are incapable or incompetent to respond to the local media. So, we have seen trends like this continue. They haven't been seen much before in the past in the territory.

We are exposing the inability of the members opposite to produce any policies and platforms. The Minister of Health and Social Services said that the NDP on this side of the House didn't like their policies. They don't have any policies. They haven't made one policy initiative or statement in this entire legislative session, with the exception of signing bonuses for the YTA at the collective bargaining table. They haven't implemented one new economic initiative. They haven't told Yukoners in any way, shape or form what they plan on doing to try and stimulate and continue to diversify this economy. They table our budget - the NDP's budget - and then say, "Don't blame us, it's the NDP." They stand up and say that they are accountable for the budget, and then they stand up and accuse the NDP of reckless spending when they brought in a supplementary that spent more than the NDP. And then, Mr. Speaker -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: Pardon me?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding:Mr. Speaker, I'm shocked. The members opposite are accusing me of using up debate time for making solid, legitimate points about how inappropriate their behaviour - Mr. Speaker, the public out there should be listening to the yelling coming across the way from the other side. These are the Liberals who said they would bring more professionalism to this House, that they wouldn't engage in heckling, that they would be the models of good behaviour in this House, and I can barely hear myself think from the heckling that I'm receiving. Mr. Speaker. It's hurting my feelings.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the members opposite: they promised the Yukon that, come the fall, there will be the supplementary. Well, I say to them, given all the promises - and we just heard the Minister of Health and Social Services - if you keep talking to him, he always coughs up. He said, "Our commitment to FAS/FAE is going to be a lot more than the $250,000." So, we look forward to seeing that in the supplementary budget.

Mr. Speaker, we know there are commitments out there. They have said that they're going to respond to legal aid. They said they were going to purchase a dialysis machine. They said they're going to put more money into the economic development branch in certain areas. They have said they're going to increase the cultural industries and heritage budgets, but yet we have the Member for Riverside stand up and talk about the reckless spending of the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, this will be the mother of all supplementaries. Everything is, "Wait till the fall. We're going to tell you our policies in the fall." But before the election it was the Premier telling Yukoners, "Wait till the election; then we'll tell you what we're going to do." Now it's, "Wait till the fall, then we'll tell you what we're going to do."

Mr. Speaker, there are so many inconsistencies from the members opposite, so many things we have to expose. It's really quite apparent, as we go on throughout this legislative session, that the Liberals don't do what they say they're going to do. I can't believe the numerous promises and commitments that they have been evasive on, that they have avoided coming through on for Yukoners. Today in Question Period we saw the Premier try to stand up and talk about the Yukon Oil and Gas Act and the process unveiled in that for delivering on land sales.

Well, we know the Yukon Oil and Gas Act is good. It was an NDP act that was unanimously passed in this House. That's not the point. The point is that the Premier said she wasn't going to do these land sales without the permission from the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation for the development. She has broken her promise. Then she told the environmental community she'd consult before she went out for land sales.

It's clear, Mr. Speaker, that she's not doing that. She has already started the process. She refuses to answer the question whether she will pull the call for nominations, like she promised, if the Vuntut Gwitchin doesn't allow the development to proceed.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's clear that the horse is out of the barn with regard to the oil and gas call, and that's fine. That's a decision that the Liberals have made. They have to be accountable for that.

Mr. Speaker, we're here to hold them accountable. I am shocked, frankly, that this bill would be brought forward for interim supply and that we would still hear, in the midst of this interim supply bill, which would give them spending authority, the heckling and complaints from the members opposite about the budget.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the members opposite are anxious to get out of here; they want to go on holidays, but they cannot abrogate themselves of the responsibility to do their job as government ministers and government Cabinet. They have a lot of work to do for the fall because they have promised a throne speech; they have promised more funding for just about everything under the sun, and they have promised to balance the budget. So, Mr. Speaker, they have a lot of work ahead of them.

One of the things that we, in opposition, have to do is ensure that we hold them accountable for their promises and point out to Yukoners that they are not doing what they said they would do when they mess up. And Mr. Speaker, we are also here to congratulate them when they undertake a solid initiative. Unfortunately, we have seen precious little in the way of solid initiatives from the members opposite.

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: The members opposite are signalling that I should stop now because the camera is off, but I want to tell them that I am fundamentally committed to what I'm saying. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the camera is on. I know they are motivated by the camera. I know that that's their driving force. I know that what leads them through the desolate despair and hollow void of the agenda they have is their love for the camera.

We heard the Premier tell us that we should be listening to the transcript because she's the darling of Chevron. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we know the Premier like they don't know the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we found out that the people in the Yukon who really care and who really matter are the ones who should be concerned about what the Premier is doing here.

Mr. Speaker, it's nice that she was enthusiastic in her meeting with Chevron, but the bottom line for Yukoners is that they said that they're not doing any work up here until she settles land claims. They also said that Anderson also said that they're not doing any work. So, it's great that the Premier is enthusiastic. It would be nice if she actually delivered with some substance in this territory and actually starts to do what she says she's going to do. We are more than prepared to pass interim supply. This would give the government spending authority. They'll be able to carry on with the budget - our budget - that we passed and that they have now said that they are accountable for.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the fall, as well, when the Auditor General reports on the fiscal situation. He will show that when they took over, there was a $56.2-million surplus, and I would suspect it's going to be even more.

So, I say to members opposite that we will be supporting this interim supply bill so that the government operations can continue on, and we can continue to debate and discuss this budget and hold them accountable for what they're doing.

Mr. Jenkins: I, too, will be supporting this interim supply bill, Mr. Speaker, but let's just have a look at what we're accomplishing here. The interim supply bill will commit approximately $300 million of a $500-million budget, when you add the interim supply bill to the warrants that have currently been in use.

This is the largest budget - $500 million - ever in the history of the Yukon. On the opening day of this session, I presented an option that the government should have - and I bet by now they're wishing they had - explored it. What is becoming abundantly clear as we proceed through this sitting is that this new Liberal government is totally unprepared to govern.

They are totally unprepared with any policies. Virtually all we've heard of are the window dressings and the wonderful ceremonies and the great speeches about how wonderful and what potential we have, and 10-year plans but, really, there hasn't been anything concrete come forward with respect to the position of this Liberal government. And that in itself is very, very disappointing - very disappointing to me and probably very disappointing to all Yukoners. And the Premier might have thought that the accolades presented to her or given to her by the oil and gas people were great, but the message that came through is the message that we are not going to be doing anything in the Yukon until the land claims are resolved. That message was driven home by Chevron, Anderson and, I'm sure - although it wasn't reported on the news media - a lot of the mining companies.

So what do we have today, Mr. Speaker? We have the largest budget ever in the history of the Yukon Territory. We have no oil and gas exploration. We have fantastic potential in those areas. We are probably going to hit the lowest ever mining exploration spending in a decade or so - that's this year. We're probably going to have the lowest level of mineral production in a long, long time. It used to be that mineral production in the Yukon was two or three times the budget of the Yukon government. Now it's just a drop in the bucket. But there's hope on the horizon. There is a tremendous amount of potential here in the Yukon, a tremendous amount of potential in the people in the Yukon and a tremendous amount of potential in our natural resources - our forests, our minerals and our oil and gas.

But it's going to take a government with a plan, with the ability and with the intestinal fortitude to sell those plans and carry them forward. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, to date this Liberal government has demonstrated none of the above. The ability that they have demonstrated is the ability to speak well for the Yukon at the various conferences and events they attend. They have very sharp scissors for the ribbon-cutting ceremonies and very sharp knives for the cake-cutting ceremonies. But other than that, the Yukon is stagnant, Mr. Speaker, and I find that appalling. We haven't got much hope, and it'll be until the fall before we see any hope. The more we see this government in action, the less chance we see of any hope.

So, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the government of the day not taking some firm, concrete advice that I provided to them on the first sitting day of this legislative session, I don't know. It looks like we might have to advance another interim supply bill at the end of next month.

All we are looking to get out on the record, Mr. Speaker, are the policies that this government wants, and we'd like some clear, concise answers. This government leader and her ministers have been remiss in providing them to this Legislature, and that in itself is extremely disappointing. We could move on very, very quickly if the answers were forthcoming - definite, definitive answers that outline the policies and the game plan of this new Liberal government.

We look forward to hearing them, because it's very, very hard to pry them out one at a time. It's agonizing, but if we have to, we will, because that's what being in opposition is all about. That's what our responsibility is: to ensure that this government and their policies are kept accountable - that's what it's all about.

Now, I want to make it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, we're not delaying this budget. The problem is that this government is not answering questions that they have to answer about this budget. That is the problem summed up very succinctly. This interim supply bill will ensure that the government continues its operations for the next month, and I support this interim supply bill. It's a routine, housekeeping initiative.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:There is a temptation to respond to the rhetoric of the members opposite. Suffice it to say that this government doesn't provide Oscars; they're given out by another institution. And it wasn't that stellar a performance by either of them.

This bill that's before us provides spending authorities for the departments of government in the event that the main estimates have not cleared the House, and we are all well-aware of the purpose of this bill, and I strongly commend it to the House to move it through to Committee for debate.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 4 agreed to

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

Speaker: It has been moved by the government House leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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

Some Hon. Member: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a 15-minute recess.

Recess

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Committee will be dealing with Bill No. 4, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2000-01.

Bill No. 4 - Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2000-01

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I am certain that all members of the House are well aware of the purpose of this bill. It requests $33.1 million in appropriation authority for the month of July in order that the government can continue to function if the main estimate debate remains incomplete.

Since we've obtained special warrants for the period of April, May and June, the sums being requested for the department here are in large measure one-ninth of the remaining expenditures in the mains.

I welcome questions from the members opposite.

Mr. Jenkins: We don't have any questions per se, Mr. Chair. We concur with the reason for this bill. We only suggest that the Liberals should have taken another tack at the onset of this sitting, so that we can get on with the business of governing Yukon in a much more expedient fashion than the Liberals have demonstrated to date, by their presence here in the House.

You just have to look at the initiatives that are underway around the Yukon to see how sadly we are lacking in any sort of development in so many areas where there is such tremendous potential and to just look at a couple of those areas.

There is the oil and gas industry, and the Premier's attendance in Calgary. That was great. Both Chevron and Anderson spoke highly of the Premier and what she had to say, but the underlying message is: "Don't bother coming back to talk to us until you're in a position to sell something or offer something, and you can't do that until such time as land claims are settled in the Yukon. So, thank you very much. You're a great lady. It was a great speech, but just go away and do your work. Get on with it and get the land claims settled up there, and then we'll have a serious look because there's tremendous oil and gas potential."

I'm sure that virtually the same message echoed from the mining community. We have a wealth of mineral potential underlying the mantle of the Yukon, Mr. Chair. Yet, as a consequence of the political bungling and a relationship between the Yukon Liberals and the federal Liberals that may or may not exist but was a main campaign platform plank in the last election, the benefits are not accruing to Yukoners as a consequence of this wonderful, close-knit relationship between the Yukon Liberals and the federal Liberals.

So much for mining, mining exploration and oil and gas. In forestry, we have a little bit of potential there but, again, it's largely dependent on the settlement of the land claims.

So, if the government of the day could focus their attention in dealing with the realities of Yukon issues, we might be much better off, instead of calling this House to order and not having a budget of their own, but someone else's and wanting to fumble through the budget in very short order - a budget which is the largest budget in the history of the Yukon, Mr. Chair - and when we look at this interim supply bill, this is just a standard housekeeping procedure.

So, we're in support of it. We have nothing against the bill itself, and we'll support it, Mr. Chair.

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

We will now go through Bill No. 4.

On Schedule A

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 4 out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Chair: Committee will now turn to Bill No. 21, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act.

Bill No. 21 - An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I have previously introduced this bill and spoken to it, as have many members of the House.

This act will bring forward the provisions of a cut in personal income tax to all Yukoners and, further, it allows for provisions for tax credits for the Fireweed Act, which is a particular fund that has been supported by all members of this House when in government and when in opposition. It's a particular fund that I know many Yukoners are looking forward to seeing in place, and I'm certain Yukoners are looking forward also to the tax cuts proposed in this piece of legislation.

Mr. Fentie: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Briefly, it's very pleasing for us on this side of the House to see the Liberals proceed and move forward with this legislation that the NDP government, the former government, developed. Unfortunately, the Premier and the Liberal government fail to indicate to Yukoners what's beyond this bill that the NDP constructed. I think it's important that all Yukoners understand and know where this government is taking them. The NDP on this side of the House fully support the tax bill and look forward to its assent.

Mr. Jenkins: This is one of the 120-odd election promises that the Liberals are honouring, but when we look at it and see that it was originally tabled by the NDP, it falls far short of what the NDP were proposing. And it gives a two-percent tax cut for one year only. What happens at the end of that period of time is uncertainty.

And in the current Minister of Finance's own words, when she was in opposition, this tax cut will effectively, for someone in a $45,000 a year income category, buy a tank of gas, some diapers or some minimum amount of dog food for a dog musher. Now, what has changed from then to now is, really, nothing. There isn't anything that has changed. I guess there is one thing that has changed, Mr. Chair. Now, it probably won't buy a tank of gas. And at the end of the year, the end of this fiscal period, where are we going to go from there?

When you contrast the tax cut with the indicated budget surplus of $56.2 million at the end of March 31, which I am sure will be confirmed by the Auditor General in due course - and in spite of what the Liberal government of the day is saying, it will be the Premier's signature, as Minister of Finance, that signs off on those auditor's statements, which, in all likelihood, will clearly indicate that the surplus will be some $56.2 million, the accumulated surplus.

It will be a signature of the Premier, as Minister of Finance, that signs off those financial statements. So, all of this nonsense that the Liberals are currently talking about with respect to the surplus only being $14-point-something million is just a projected surplus at the end of this next fiscal period, Mr. Chair. Let's start comparing apples to oranges. Perhaps the Department of Finance can provide a briefing to the government of the day and to the ministers to explain what accumulated lapses and deficits are all about. We would save a lot of time in the House if they had an understanding of those issues.

After it's all added up at the end of the fiscal period, we have $56.2 million, and this government, while honouring one of its election platforms, sees its way clear to provide but a two-percent tax cut. When you start looking at that two-percent tax cut, that is on the federal amount. When you calculate your income tax, you first calculate your federal component payable. Then you calculate the 50 percent of the federal as being that portion that is the Yukon tax due and payable for income tax purposes.

When you look at the current proposed reductions and reductions that are coming down the pipeline from the federal government, and you look at this two-percent reduction and extrapolate those numbers, let's see what that does for Yukoners at the end of the day.

But I will give the Minister of Finance credit. It does honour one of the Liberal positions. But they could have done much more and gone much further. They could have spelled out tax reductions for the next period of time, as some of the other jurisdictions in Canada have done, but no, they chose not to. They could have done something similar to what the Yukon Party proposed in the last election: provided immediate 10-percent reduction to Yukoners on their taxes payable; but no, this new Liberal government has chosen not to.

There seems to be some paranoia about this budget surplus and where we're going to end up at the end of the day, Mr. Chair. And I do have concerns with that, given the amount of spending commitments that the Minister of Health and Social Services is committed to. They are very, very extensive, and when you add up all of the election commitments that the Liberal platform was based on, the Premier of the Yukon will be headed down to Ottawa with hat in hand seeking some more funds from the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, in one form or another, to balance the budget up here.

Mr. Chair, I will not be supporting this tax cut because it really doesn't accomplish what this government should be accomplishing, and that is reducing the tax load for Yukoners - keeping pace with the rest of Canada. Our cost of living up here is considerably higher than the rest of Canada, and yet the major jurisdictions in the rest of Canada are enjoying tax reductions well in excess of this two percent.

The government currently has the money in the bank to offset the reduction in income tax. Every one-percent reduction translates into a $250,000 reduction in revenues to the Yukon government. Now, I'm sure the Premier is getting a briefing from her advisor as to how that works out and the mathematics involved, but she will find that that's a correct statement, Mr. Chair. I'm hoping she'll be fully apprised as we move along.

The bottom line is this: what does this two-percent reduction accomplish for Yukoners, when this government could do so much more at this juncture and provide so much more tax relief for Yukoners, and they have chosen not to. That, in itself, I find extremely disappointing, Mr. Chair.

What we need to do here is grow the economy. But this year, Yukon is probably going to be going further backwards in all areas, where we have so much potential and opportunity. Now, the ball is in this Liberal government's court. They either do not have the ability to run with that ball, they don't have the skills or the stamina or something. But something is definitely very, very wrong when they choose to slight Yukoners with such a paltry tax reduction.

I'm disappointed. I know they can do better. Perhaps as they learn and understand the system that they're working in, they will be able to do so. I look forward to that time.

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

On Clause 1

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I move that you report Bill No. 21 out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Chair: Committee will now go to Bill No. 22, An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act.

Bill No. 22 - An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The Member for Klondike had raised some questions yesterday when I spoke to this, and I would like to respond to him. He had asked if all of the various types of situations have been covered off. When a property has been designated a heritage property, will the government register a caveat around that property that will allow it to remain a heritage property with certain terms and conditions?

Yes, a caveat will be registered in the land titles office outlining each party's commitments, and it is binding on each party for the life of the agreement. The authority for this agreement is designated under the Historic Resources Act by the minister responsible. The agreement is intended to be a covenant running with the land, providing for the maintenance, preservation and protection of the site.

The member had also asked that if the property is being used for residential purposes at the time of designation and subsequently changes to a commercial use, will the property then have a tax advantage compared to other similar types of commercial properties. In real dollar terms, the overall potential for a monetary advantage is unlikely. That is because a property owner responsible for a designated site has the legal obligation to fulfill terms of the agreement, which include protection, maintenance and preservation of the site, as I have just mentioned. Property tax dollars that would have otherwise paid for either residential or non-residential use would assist with the cost associated with fulfilling the terms of the agreement.

There will be a cost to the property owner to fulfill the terms of the agreement. This property tax exemption is government's contribution to assist with the preservation of the designated site.

The member had asked if this can be considered a downloading of responsibility to the municipalities as a future requirement and cost. The Yukon government respects the municipality's property tax jurisdiction. This legislation is solely intended for application within the Yukon government's taxation jurisdiction, which is rural Yukon. It will in no way erode the municipality's property tax base. The municipalities may, at their discretion, adopt or enable a similar provision by way of bylaw permitted under the Municipal Act; however, it is doubtful that a municipality would implement a tax exemption that seriously eroded their tax revenues.

Most municipalities currently issue a grant equal to taxes by way of bylaw to many active, non-profit organizations, which could also be extended to the heritage community if deemed appropriate by the respective municipal councils. This applies only to territorially designated sites. The Historic Resources Act enables municipalities to make their own municipal-level designations for which they have responsibility. The City of Whitehorse has passed such a bylaw and has so far designated six buildings.

The member also asked how we compare to provincial jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions appear to be different - for example, Montreal. He asked if there was an explanation. The Yukon tax proposal and the Historic Resources Act are based on the legislation and experience of the southern provinces, all of whom have developed provincial legislation for preservation of historic buildings. The City of Whitehorse heritage management plan lists various tools for incentives, such as financial incentives, direct grants, the heritage trust fund, preferential fee structure, development incentives, zoning concessions and building code equivalencies, administrative incentives, priority routing of permit applications and the permit view process and public-awareness programs.

Part 2, section 12(1) of the Historic Resources Act states that the minister may make grants or loans and may supply professional or technical or other services to help the owners of historic sites restore, repair, maintain, preserve, protect or promote the site. This is in keeping with wording in other provincial legislation and other provincial incentives. Larger cities such as Vancouver, Edmonton and Winnipeg can offer performance grants, discretionary grants, direct loans, loan guarantees, tax relief, municipal tax credits, property tax exemptions for charitable organizations, rezoning, conditional uses, zoning concessions, density transfers, expediting approvals, property standard concessions, preferential leasing of rehabilitated buildings by the municipality, management standards for municipally owned structures, sales tax rebates on building products, and so forth.

The federal government, as part of its last budget, is currently developing the framework for a national register in trust, based on the American model that allows extensive federal tax incentives for sites designated by provinces, and I hope that answers the member's questions.

Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister give the House an idea as to the total number of properties in the private sector in the Yukon government's taxing authority that would potentially qualify under this new legislation?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: There are currently no sites designated under section 14 of the Historic Resources Act. I'm not sure how many there would potentially be under the heritage branch, but we are estimating only a handful.

Mr. Jenkins: Before we move forward on a piece of legislation like this, we look at the tax implications and the benefits. Now, we must have in our grasp some sort of a handle on the total number of properties in the private sector within the taxing authority of the Government of the Yukon that could potentially qualify. You know, to say that there are just a handful - I'm sorry, that just doesn't wash. There has got to be a little bit more of an analysis conducted than that, Mr. Chair. And I see that the minister now has her briefing notes, and I'll allow her to respond.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As I said, exact numbers of buildings that would be affected are not available. We estimate that the property tax exemption will result in a loss of $5,000 to $10,000 to the Government of Yukon in annual property tax revenue. The Finance department has confirmed that a decision to forfeit property taxes on these heritage properties will not affect the formula financing grant.

Mr. Jenkins: So, we're going to exempt just the improvements on the land, or are we going to exempt the land and the improvements from taxing?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, it would depend on the agreement made with the individual property owner, but normally it would focus on the improvements.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, okay, how is this agreement going to come into force? In what cases would it include the land? In some places in rural Yukon, the land is of considerably higher value than the improvements, especially when they're older and they have been depreciated.

Under what cases will the land be exempt, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to explain how it works. The Historic Resources Act defines a historic site as one designated under section 14, part 3, of the act. I can go through that at length if the member wishes. The minister may designate any site as a historic site, when satisfied that the site is, whether in itself or by reason of historic resources or human remains, discovered, or believed to be at the site, an important illustration of the historic or prehistoric development of the territory or a specific locality within the territory, or of the peoples of the territory or locality and their respective cultures, or the natural history of the territory or a specific locality within the territory and has sufficient historic significance to be so designated.

A property owner who wishes to apply for tax exemption will petition the minister responsible for heritage to designate the property as a Yukon historic site. The Department of Tourism's heritage branch will then complete an assessment under authority of the Historic Resources Act. The Yukon Heritage Resources Board will undertake a further evaluation and will advise the minister on whether they feel the property merits designation. Prior to designation, the minister will negotiate a historic resources agreement with the property owner, and these will, as I said, vary with the property.

Mr. Jenkins: I don't have any quarrel with the intent of the bill, Mr. Chair, but when would the property that is under question - when would the land be exempt? I can see, at all times, the improvements being exempted, but can the minister make a case for the land being exempt? If so, what would that case be?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, as I have said, from the Historic Resources Act, if the site - and the site includes the land and improvements - is in itself, or by reason of historic resources or human remains discovered or believed to be at the site, an important illustration of the things I just quoted. So, there will be cases where the land is a part of the site, and there will be a case where the land is not important and the improvements are. That will vary case by case. I can't speculate.

Mr. Jenkins: I'm not asking the minister to speculate. I'm asking the minister to be hard and fast in the application of a set of rules. Graveyards are exempt from taxing authorities, and improvements are always on land. I don't know where the Yukon would have a taxing authority for something not on a titled or leased piece of land in the Yukon. Perhaps I'm unaware of some circumstance, and perhaps the minister can advise me.

In all cases that I'm aware of, the improvements would be situated on a parcel of land, and I'm just looking for an example as to when that land would be included in the tax exemption. I can buy the minister's arguments at all times for the improvements, because the improvements are of historical significance.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: If there is a large parcel of property, and there is a site on a relatively small portion of that land, it may be that the agreement would only cover part of the land. But as there are no sites currently designated under section 14 of the Historic Resources Act, I cannot give him an example.

Mr. Jenkins: Let's just extrapolate what we have before us. We haven't defined the age or vintage as to what would be considered a historical object here in the Yukon. It's a relatively new, recent period of time. Is that not correct? What is the period of time that we're looking at for an object to become of historical significance?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The determination of the things the member is asking about - vintage - rests within the Department of Tourism, as they are responsible for the Historic Resources Act.

Mr. Jenkins:So we're tied to two pieces of legislation that are extremely important, and I believe it's 25 years, and after a certain number of years beyond that, you have to apply for a permit to remove that building or that object out of the Yukon. I'm not sure what that point is. Currently, I believe it's 50 years, which is current history - in some of our lifetimes, I might add. But when you start looking, and I'm looking down the road, and the minister answered the question that I posed to her the other day in speaking to this bill at second reading, which was: when it starts off as a residential property and switches to commercial, could there be an unfair advantage given to that commercial-property owner now, vis-à-vis being adjacent to someone doing the same thing with the same age of business. The minister's response was that they have a tremendous amount of upkeep on that building, and they have to follow through with maintaining the conditions of the caveat of the agreement.

Well, so be it, Mr. Chair. That brings me full circle. Could the minister find that information as to when the land would be included and what are you going to do? Subdivide the main parcel of land to include just a small area and register the caveat against that small subdivision? There are a lot of legal implications and a lot of cost implications associated with bringing forward this type of initiative. I want to make sure it works, and I want to make sure it works for the betterment of not just one or two properties, because I'm not aware of too many properties that fall into this category within the taxing authority of the Yukon government.

So, that is an important issue - the issue as to when it will include the land. When will the land be exempt along with the structures, or the improvements as they're called, in the Assessment and Taxation Act?

That's the key question, the critical question. I haven't heard a definitive answer yet, Mr. Chair, and I'm still looking for one.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, there are already cases where a portion of a parcel of land is set aside for a different use than the rest of the parcel, as in agricultural properties.

Mr. Jenkins: So, is that going to be enshrined in the regulations somehow, that only the land underneath the historical building or structure will be subdivided out of the main parcel of land and only that parcel of land will be subject to tax exemption? Is that what we're looking at, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the amount of land that would be involved would be the amount of land that, with the improvements, has an historic significance, as I have indicated to the member, but what he is suggesting is something we can look into.

Mr. Jenkins: I take it these will all be done by regulations; they're not going to be in the act itself, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: It will be either regulation or policy, it would not be in the act itself.

Mr. Jenkins: I'm not too comfortable with things being in regulations when they can be enshrined in legislation and you have a definitive policy, because the regulations tend to move back and forth depending on the political winds of the day. And the political winds are very, very light these days, and I find that quite an interesting statement in itself. Is there any way we can look at bringing back this act with those enshrined in the body of the act? Or does the minister wish that I propose an amendment, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I refer again to the example of an agricultural property with a home on it, where the land immediately around the home is taxed at an entirely different rate than the portion of the property which is used for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, but the question to the minister was dealing with the regulations containing this information or the act itself. And I was asking the minister if she wanted me to move an amendment to include that portion of the regulations in the act. I'm quite prepared to do so, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the Historic Resources Board criteria will determine these things. The Heritage Resources Board has an opportunity to develop review criteria that will apply to all properties to be considered.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I'd like to thank the minister for her response, Mr. Chair, but it doesn't provide long-term certainty to this act, such as would be available should those proposed regulations be part of the body of this act, and I'm sure that the minister can concur. What I'm looking for is some certainty as to the rules surrounding the various initiatives that might come forward to the board, and when they are in regulations, they can be changed at the whim and want of the executive council member. When they are in the actual legislation, they have to come to the floor of this House before they can be altered or changed, and they're subject to public scrutiny and public debate.

Now, I want to make it abundantly clear that I very much support this type of legislation. I also want to make it clear that I want to see the rules set out so that they are consistent and don't allow an unfair advantage in the commercial sector. And I want to see the rules also set out so that there is not a great deal of land on which these improvements would be situated that is exempt from the taxing authority - only that parcel of land where the actual structure is contained, or a reasonable amount associated with it, Mr. Chair.

But all of these decisions are outside of the purview of this Legislature. They're going to be done by regulations or by another board, and I don't think that is totally reasonable, Mr. Chair. So, I'm asking the Minister to consider enshrining a lot of that into the body of this act. Will she do so?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I will point out to the member that the Heritage Resources Board falls under the responsibility of the heritage branch of the Tourism department, and they will be developing criteria which we would be pleased to get to the member when they are developed.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, if I hear the Minister correctly, what we're being asked to do is pass an act and pass a bill for which we don't have any idea of the downstream consequences. Is that what she's saying?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: It's always interesting to hear the Member for Klondike talk about downstream consequences. Actually, the timing in many ways is quite coincidental.

Today, I met with a national body that is looking at setting standards or designations for historic sites and historic buildings, and the consultation process should be finished by the end of the summer. Setting those standards or reasons that you would designate a building or a site historic is something that we've been looking at in this country for many, many decades, and it's something that's almost here. The member is absolutely correct; there is a call for those sorts of standards right across this nation, and it's happening, and it will happen at the end of this summer, hopefully, and it will go to the federal Cabinet to be passed by the Government of Canada.

I know when I was at the municipal level - and when the member was at the municipal level as well - we were looking for that. We were looking for some sort of criteria to designate something as a historic building or not a historic building, or as a historic site or not historic. That's the sort of criteria that this group is working on. The member is totally correct; it's not just built heritage that we're looking at, but sites as well.

Hopefully, we'll be working on bringing those designations into the Yukon legislation within the next two years. That's my hope, anyway, as minister responsible.

Mr. Jenkins: So, if we're not going to have the ability to designate for another two years, why do we need this act at this juncture? We're just putting the cart before the horse.

The Minister of Tourism is speaking of the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board, and that's been in existence for a considerable length of time. It recently met here in the Yukon. It spent some time in Dawson. It's looking at designating Dawson with a greater deal of certainty with respect to its historic significance. Currently, in the Dawson area, there are 34 designated national historic sites. They are in various stages of restoration by the federal government. Some of them have been completely restored. Some of them are just shored up and stabilized. That's the federal position, Mr. Chair.

In the Yukon, the length of time a structure has had to be in existence is considerably less than the federal initiatives. The federal initiatives go through a considerably longer period of time. Structures have been in existence for a considerably longer period of time before they can be designated a national historic site.

It, in itself, is a board that has a tremendous amount of background and influence on the historical buildings in Canada, from coast to coast. The issue before us is one of keeping the playing field level and recognizing and ensuring that historic buildings are maintained. Now, I firmly support those two initiatives, Mr. Chair.

On the side of the initiative, keeping the playing field level, I'm detecting a tremendous amount of uncertainty as to how the rules are going to come downstream to us, because everything flows downstream to us from Whitehorse, especially where I live.

So, my concern lies around a historic site being designated as such being given a tax-exempt status for, let's say, a one-acre or three-acre parcel of land, subsequently being converted to, say, let's use a service station or a highway lodge and added on to and kept in the historical significance and creating an unfair business advantage for that owner. That's the area that I'm wishing to explore with the minister. How is this kind of avenue going to be kept under the watchful eye of Government of Yukon, because once it's done - once the caveat is registered - that's it.

Removing a caveat from a property is a very lengthy process. Both parties have to agree. If both parties do not agree, it has to go to the courts. So, how are we going to address this issue, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the Minister of Tourism has said that she will be bringing in legislation on this area within a couple of years. I believe we are putting the horse before the cart, because this initiative would provide legislative certainty for property tax exemption for historic sites, again outside municipalities, that are owned either by non-profit organizations or by private owners. There must be an agreement drawn up with the government, and that agreement would outline each party's commitments and be binding because the document would be registered in the land titles office. The taxes that they would not be paying they would be spending on upkeep of the property.

Mr. Jenkins: I'm probably one of the few people in the Yukon who owns a building that's over 100 years old, and I can tell the minister that the upkeep on that property is not significantly different from a current property, so I don't believe that argument washes.

What I'm looking at is the unfair advantage that could occur should this go into the commercial sector, and what kind of rationale is the minister going to provide should that take place, or is the caveat going to be registered against the property that it can't be used for commercial purposes? Is that part of the equation?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, as I said, an agreement specific to each case will be drawn up. What the parties to that agreement determine is not for me to say. We are talking about a total of $5,000 to $10,000 per year in tax exemption.

Mr. Jenkins: My gosh. We are supposed to be forward-thinking individuals who have the best interests of the Yukon at heart, Mr. Chair. The Liberals certainly are not displaying that. You have to look down the road, because buildings are growing older. What are the implications in 25 or 50 years from now, with this piece of legislation? What potential does it have? And it has a great deal of potential to preserve the historical values of the Yukon. That heritage is part of our history, and it's part of our visitor industry. It's another area that we could build upon.

It would appear that the minister doesn't have a firm handle on what this is all about and the downstream implications to all of us. She just puts this bill through and abdicates the responsibility to another board to determine all the causes and effects. That's not fair. There should be something in there that ensures that we can move ahead in a uniform manner, that there's not an unfair advantage should a historically designated property go into commercial use. That's one of the concerns I have, and there isn't anything in there to address that. Everything is subject to an agreement between the property owner and a board that's not even within the minister's own department, Mr. Chair.

So how does the minister intend to address it? Or is she just going to live with the consequence of the decision of someone else whom she has no control over, or no ability to control or no ability to direct? Is that what's going to happen? That's what appears to be the case, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The Minister of Tourism has said that she will be bringing in legislation to address this, and it is up to the heritage resources board to develop criteria.

Mr. Jenkins: I'd be much more comfortable seeing the criteria that surround this. If the minister could kindly table that information, I would certainly appreciate it.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I'd be pleased to table the rules when they are developed. I note that a property owner proposing a change in use that's significant - that would, I presume, include a change from a dwelling to a commercial establishment - must have ministerial approval from the minister responsible for heritage, which would be the Minister of Tourism, before they could make such a change in the original agreement.

Mr. Jenkins: So the minister is confident that there's no cause for alarm, no cause for concern. In two years' time, we are going to have legislation in place that will cover-off this area, but we're going to pass this act immediately and, for the next two years, I guess this wonderful Liberal government - which doesn't have a clear understanding of where we're heading and how we're going to get there - will look after things. Is that going to be the case, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: It would seem to me to make more sense to have this in place first, to put the horse before the cart, since there are, at this time, no such sites designated. Then, that way, when somebody does bring forward a site they wish to have designated or the heritage branch has a site they wish to have designated, we would have this legislation in place.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I'm sure the department has some sort of an understanding as to the number of potential structures that would come under this classification and their taxing authority.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As I've already said, we expect it to be a handful, with total tax implications between $5,000 and $10,000 a year.

Mr. Jenkins:The other concern is that most of these buildings, given the age and the Assessment and Taxation Act, the improvements are based on Whitehorse replacement costs, less observed depreciation. So a lot of these structures would be depreciated to very little if not anything. Is there any move afoot to look at appraised value or assessed value for purposes of these properties, or is the Yukon government moving more on their assessment base to market value? Where are we heading in that regard?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: We are not proposing to make any changes in the way that such properties are taxed. However, there are other provisions in various places in the government for the property owner to apply for grants for various purposes.

Mr. Jenkins: I'm not looking at grants from other sources of government. I'm not looking at that side of the equation at all. I'm looking at dovetailing the legislation that we have before us into the real world out there, to see its implications and to see its impact on Yukon. And I can see some very positive benefits - some great potential - but what you don't want to disrupt is the commercial marketplace by creating an unfair advantage. If the minister wants to stand on her feet and assure this House that, as a consequence of this piece of legislation coming into force, there won't be any unfair commercial advantages created, I'll be happy with it.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, it is certainly not the government's intention to create any unfair advantage and I'm sure that's one of the things the board will look at when they're developing criteria.

Mr. Jenkins: So, I take that to mean that the minister can provide her assurances that there won't be any unfair commercial advantages when the assent is given to this act and that there won't be any unfair commercial advantages created? Is that her statement categorically, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I say again, it is not the government's intent to create any unfair commercial advantage.

Mr. Jenkins: By the minister's own words, - they're carefully couched, Mr. Chair, and that would lead me to conclude that there is potential for unfair commercial advantage. Is that not the case?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: It's the member opposite who is carefully couching his words. He obviously sees something in the future that he's not explaining.

Mr. Jenkins: The current minister, who is fresh in her job, might want to spend some time with her colleague, the Minister of Tourism, and find out what occurs when such a piece of legislation, affecting the taxes, is put into place. With my background and her background - it's in municipalities - you have to look, as I said earlier, downstream to see the implications across the whole, broad spectrum, and there is a potential for creating an unfair commercial advantage, and what I want the minister to ensure is that the playing field will remain level, that there won't be an unfair commercial advantage created as a result of this piece of legislation coming into force. That's all, and I'm looking for the minister's assurance in that regard, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I'll say again that it is not our intention to create an unfair advantage for anybody. It is our intention to have a level playing field.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Chair, I could call those words words for which you would call me to order, so I'll refrain from doing so, and will just see if we can persevere and get the minister to address her responsibilities and categorically state that this legislation will not create an unfair commercial advantage. That's all I'm looking for, and then we can move on. It might not be her intent, and I don't think it's anyone's intent, Mr. Chair, that this legislation would create an unfair commercial advantage.

We're looking solely at the heritage side of the equation. But it is our role as legislators to look at the whole picture. I recognize that the minister is new in her job and probably hasn't had the extensive briefings, given the time frame that she has had in office, and hasn't come to totally realize what her role is. I'm here to help. I'm with the government, Mr. Chair. I just need the minister's assurances that this piece of legislation will not create an unfair commercial advantage. That's all.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I will issue instructions that this legislation will not create an unfair commercial advantage when the criteria are developed.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you.

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

On Clause 1

Chair: Before we go on to the title, will the members accept that there might be, as a typo - instead of the Twenty-ninth Legislative Assembly, we are in the Thirtieth. Would we accept that as a typo?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

On Title

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 22 out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Ms. Tucker: Mr. Chair, I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Speaker resumes the Chair

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

May the House have a report from the Chair of the Committee of the Whole?

Mr. McLarnon: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 4, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2000-01, Bill No. 21, entitled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, and Bill No. 22, entitled An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act; and has directed me to report them without amendment.

Speaker: You have heard the report from the Chair of the Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: I declare the report carried.

Unanimous consent

Ms. Tucker: Based on the agreement between the House leaders, and pursuant to Standing Order 55(2), I would request unanimous consent for Bill No. 4, Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2000-01, to be called for third reading at this time.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I move that Bill No. 4, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Premier that Bill No. 4, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now read a third time and do pass.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 4 agreed to

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 4 has passed this House.

Bill No. 21: Third Reading

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I move that Bill No. 21, entitled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

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 third time and do pass. Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker: Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker: Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Agree.

Ms. Tucker: Agree.

Mr. McLarnon: Agree.

Mr. Kent: Agree.

Mr. Harding: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough: Agree

Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Ms. Netro: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Disagree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, one nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 21 agreed to

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 21 has passed this House.

Bill No. 22: Third Reading

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 22, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I move that Bill No. 22, entitled An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Community and Transportation Services that the Bill No. 22, entitled An Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker: Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker: Mr. Clerk, would you please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Agree.

Ms. Tucker: Agree.

Mr. McLarnon: Agree.

Mr. Kent: Agree.

Mr. Harding: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Ms. Netro: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 16 yea, nil nay.

Speaker: The ayes have it. I declare the motion carried and that Bill No. 22 has passed this House.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 22 agreed to

Ms. Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

committee of the whole

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

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: Ten minutes.

Recess

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will now continue general debate on estimates.

As general debate is concluded, we will begin with the estimates. We will start with the Department of Tourism.

Bill No. 2 - First Appropriation Act, 2000-01 - continued

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, I am presenting the 2000-01 operations and maintenance and capital estimates for the Department of Tourism. Tourism, arts and our heritage are of great importance to this government. Our government will build on our successes in the arts, heritage and tourism sectors.

In order to build, we must have a plan. Our base for building will be founded on input from Yukon people. The Department of Tourism will ask for Yukoners' ideas on how to value and protect our history with the creation of a museum strategy.

Industry will have an equal say in tourism marketing and promotion through the Yukon tourism marketing program, the YTMP.

This budget lacks the vision we will need for the future, but it will allow us to step back and re-examine our long-term priorities for the future. Through this budget, we will continue to support our important North American and European markets. We will continue to look into new and emerging markets, especially those that support our winter season. We will partner with the Yukon Convention Bureau, municipalities and local tourism businesses to develop tourism in other areas.

Learning vacations, conventions and a Yukon event poster are ways to get visitors to stay longer. Tourism is everyone's business, and we recognize the work of the non-profit sector in putting on festivals and events that encourage visitors to stay yet another day.

Through the tourism marketing partnership that the government and industry have set up, or the Yukon tourism marketing partnership, we will start to invest our marketing money wisely. We will find ways to use our joint buying power to better promote the Yukon and to create other funding partnerships with Alaska, the Canadian Tourism Commission and our northern partners: Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

The heritage branch is committed to heritage-related land claims and core projects through this budget. We will continue to work with the First Nations and communities on historic site development and excavations. Through the museum strategy we will investigate the need for a historic resources centre. This will give us a better understanding of our history while preserving our valuable heritage for future generations.

The Yukon is blessed with a setting of raw beauty and peace that inspires us to express our artistic vision. The world is only just waking up to the talent of our artists and our musicians. We need to be ready to share our arts and culture with the rest of the world. We support the arts; we will begin the steps to create a new arts act. Art education in schools will help to foster young talent. Film and video production, sound recording, book publishing and new media are areas of interest and growth for our young and experienced talent.

A growing number of skilled Yukon crewmembers and the marketing efforts of the film commission have led to change and growth of the local film industry. The Yukon could see a dramatic increase in direct spending this year. We expect to see a record-breaking year for film production.

We look to a bright future with solid planning, with a government that's listening to Yukoners. We support small and home-based businesses that are building blocks for creating a solid tourism and arts future, and we respect the cultural traditions and history of the past. We must find ways to involve youth in tourism, arts and heritage through our youth initiative program.

As Minister of Tourism, I will lead in preserving the past and building the future in partnership with the people of Yukon. I will now take your questions on the operations and maintenance and capital budget estimates for the year 2000-01.

Mr. Fairclough: I will be brief in my comments about this department. I would like to make a few comments and send a few questions over to the member opposite. Tourism certainly is an important part of Yukon and Yukon's industry. For a long time now, the aboriginal people have kept this very close to themselves and it hasn't been until lately that we've been showing off what we have to the world. There's a lot of interest in what we have in the Yukon, and a lot of interest from people overseas wanting to come to the Yukon Territory, and it's reflected in the flights that are coming to the Yukon from overseas. The Yukon is comparable to everywhere else, I think, in the world, if not a better place - a more interesting place - for visitors to the Yukon.

I have a couple of questions regarding some commitments the Liberals made in regard to tourism. I asked the minister whether or not they were going to increase funding for the heritage branch, and the minister said that they will be. It wasn't reflected in the supplementary, but there was a commitment that it will be coming in the fall supplementary. She had also said that there will be increases in other capital in the fall supplementary and in O&M. The minister said that on June 19 in response to a question I asked in regard to heritage funding. Is this still the case? Are there still increases?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: As previously noted in the House, we certainly have made the commitment to increase heritage branch funding. It was cut consistently over the last four years. Now, the commitment was that some of that funding would be reinstated in the fall supplementary budget. Not all that funding will be reinstated in the fall budget. That will happen over time.

Mr. Fairclough: So, from mains to mains, is that stable funding, as there are no cuts from mains to mains?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, the commitment is that we will be increasing funding over the next three and a half years to the heritage branch. That is the commitment, and so there will be an increase in funding in the next - well, I guess in next spring's budget. That will be for the budget year 2001-02.

Mr. Fairclough: The minister said that we were cutting funding, and I was just asking whether, in her opinion, there were any cuts from mains to mains.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, we have a chart for the last three and a half years that does map out those cuts over the last three and a half years. If the member opposite would like, I would be happy to circulate that document to the side opposite.

Mr. Fairclough: What I was trying to get at is: the member is saying that we have been cutting the funding from heritage. I just want to know what her understanding is from mains to mains. It is my understanding that it remained stable.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, the O&M has remained stable, but there have been cuts to capital from mains to mains in the past. I think that's the issue that the member is trying to get to.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, the minister has now said that there haven't been any cuts in that aspect. You can say that there were increases in Government Services for other things in heritage, such as the Taylor House. There were monies provided for capital projects in Government Services. Is that correct?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, we can go through this at great length, if the member would like. There have been cuts to capital in the heritage area of this budget, and that has happened over the last three and a half years. There have not been increases in some of the funds, where there was a promise to increase those funds. Some of those funds include the signage fund that was in this budget. That was never increased; therefore, people are doing with an awful lot less in the way of signage across the Yukon. That is one of my priorities as a minister - better signage for historic sites across the Yukon Territory. That commitment will be reflected in future budgets, as well.

As I was saying to the member opposite earlier, I do have a chart that clearly indicates the cuts to heritage over the last three and a half years under the NDP government. I will circulate that document to the side opposite.

Mr. Fairclough: That wasn't the question. I asked whether there has been an increase in dollars in Government Services for heritage and heritage buildings.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, quite often funds are transferred from one department to another. That is one of the areas where there has been some movement in this particular department to Government Services. That is true. I think the member is trying to prove the case because that happened, that there really haven't been any cuts to this branch. When you look, mains to mains, over the last three and a half years, there have been cuts.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, the minister earlier said that there were no cuts in the O&M from mains to mains.

Now the minister has committed to increases in heritage funding, which would be reflected in the next supplementary budget this fall. She also said that there would be an increase in capital projects and O&M. Can the minister tell me which capital projects she foresees are going to be reflected in the supplementary in the fall?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, some of the restoration of the cuts will occur in the fall supplementary budget. The majority will happen over the next three and a half years. As to the specific projects that are going to be addressed in the fall supplementary budget, or any other budget, that is not on the table for discussion right now. What we're talking about is this budget. When we table the next budget, then the member opposite will find out exactly what those capital projects are going to be.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, this is general debate and I would remind the member opposite again that she did say - and this was in Question Period - that there would be increases in the fall supplementary. I don't want to know what they are. I just want to get an idea of what we could look forward to. She said there'd be increases in heritage funding. It's not happening in this supplementary, but it will happen for sure. Those were her words.

I'd like to ask the minister - she also said that there'd be increases in cultural industries in the fall supplementary. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, I think that the member opposite is making wild generalizations from the comments made during Question Period. Very clearly, we said that our priorities will be reflected in the fall supplementary budget. There was no specific commitment to the fall supplementary budget; however, there is a commitment that the priorities of this government will be reflected in the fall supplementary budget, but our priorities will also be reflected over the next three and a half years.

Very clearly, tourism is an industry that we support, much as the members opposite supported it when they were in government.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, I realize that and expect that there will be increases, as the member said, over the next years, but she also said there would be increases in cultural industries. I just want to know a bit more about that so I can look forward to this in the fall.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, this government does what it says it will do. There has been a commitment made, and there will be a commitment to cultural industries indicated in the fall supplementary budget. I'm not going to say exactly what that commitment is going to be, and the member knows I can't do that. He has certainly been in this seat before, although not this particular ministry. He knows exactly what I can commit to and what I can't.

This is something we are going to go out and talk to Yukoners about. We're going to do our own caucusing, and we're going to come back to the side opposite with a supplementary budget in the fall, indicating our support for a number of different items, some of which were outlined in our platform and others that are ongoing concerns of this government.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, all I wanted to do is to get some idea - maybe this side of the House can help the members opposite to create this. There was a commitment to the general public during the election and afterwards, most recently in this House. That was a very big commitment by the Liberal Party, and people are looking forward to it and are asking me questions. I can turn them over to the minister opposite, but I would also like to play some part in giving some answers to constituents who ask me these questions.

Can you give us a hint about what increases we can see in the supplementary budget for cultural industries?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, this government has always been very supportive of the film industry, a growing industry here in the Yukon, one that's growing in leaps and bounds. It's going from $1 million to pretty close to $3 million this year, part of that because of the incentive program that the previous government introduced. So I would expect that there will be continuing support for the film industry here in the Yukon.

Mr. Fairclough: There was a commitment to have a new arts act in place for the fall. Has this legislation been drafted?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: I restated that commitment to tabling a Yukon arts act this fall in my speech that prefaced this budget, and, obviously, we're going to be doing it this fall. As far as the drafting is concerned, it's in the process. We're working with Community and Transportation Services on that project now.

Mr. Fairclough: Is it on schedule, and will it be ready for the fall?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, it will be ready for the fall sitting.

Mr. Fairclough: The Liberals said that they wanted to concentrate on the rubber-tire traffic into the Yukon. I was wondering what the minister's thoughts are on venturing into the Asian market. She mentioned that in her opening remarks about the Asian desk. Maybe she could tell us more about that.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, at this point we are looking at sustaining the advances that have already been made in that market. So, we're holding at the same level that we have committed to as a government in the past.

Mr. Fairclough: That's interesting, because the Liberals have not always supported the trade missions that the NDP government went on. And there was a commitment to concentrate more close to home - in Alaska and the rest of Canada - and now the Liberals will be following the NDP direction in branching out and looking further - overseas - to bring more people into the Yukon. I guess that was reflected in the support of increased air traffic to the Yukon. I would like to ask the minister: are there any incentive tours, like we had with Fulda, to the Yukon?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: As the member opposite knows, Fulda is coming back again next year.

I think I need to go back to the issue about the North American. This government is committed to that 82 percent of our travellers who come up the highway or come to the Yukon from North America. I mean, that is our biggest market, and we're going to spend a lot of energy in that area, trying to get people to stay for another day. If we can just get them to stay for four more hours - and this is something that I heard from the Tourism minister at the time - then we can increase their spending in the Yukon dramatically. Right now, the average spending is $65 for a person passing through the Yukon in their RV, and that's, quite frankly, not enough, and we're aiming for more.

Part of that is a marketing program that is targeted toward the military in Alaska and those families travelling back and forth constantly throughout our territory, and that will help, we believe, in trying to get people to spend a little bit more time here. We know that people in Alaska will come here for festivals, that they will come here for sporting events, and so we are going to be spending a little bit more energy trying to get people to do just that and spend a little bit more money. That's a market that we know we have got, and we're going to continue to work within that market.

We're also looking at bringing Canadians up here and giving them a reason to stay here, particularly the ones in northern B.C. because we have a lot of connection with them as well. So, we're talking about spending a little bi