Whitehorse, Yukon

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I rise today to offer a special birthday tribute. On Monday, this wonderful country we call Canada will be 133 years old. This country is a model to the world. That's not to say that there aren't problems. We are taking steps to right some of the past wrongs through our commitment to the settlement of First Nation land claims.

Mr. Speaker, for the past seven years, the United Nations has ranked Canada as the best place in the world in which to live. Just this week, the United Nations reconfirmed this ranking; however, the United Nations says that there is a problem. Canada is not the best place in the world to live if you are a woman. On that scale, Canada ranks only eighth in the world. Among the factors the UN considered is the number of women who are working in Parliament, government, professional and technical jobs, compared with men.

It gives me great pleasure to point out that on this side of the House, we have four women representing Yukon voters, and three of them are in Cabinet. This Liberal government is the only gender-balanced government in all of Canada.

I might also point out that Judy Gingell, our Commissioner, is a woman. Our senator, Ione Christensen, is a woman. Our Member of Parliament, Louise Hardy, is a woman, and the mayor of our largest city in the Yukon is also a woman.

If the United Nations says Canada is the best country in the world to live, in my calculations, the Yukon must be the best of the best. On behalf of our government and on behalf of all Yukoners, I wish all Canadians a very happy birthday on Monday.

Tribute to Erika Popyk, Lynda Ellerton and YTG cafeteria staff

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: On behalf of the Government of the Yukon and its employees, we would like to pay tribute to Erika Popyk, Lynda Ellerton and the staff of the YTG cafeteria for 23 years of dedicated service. The excellent food, the friendship and the humour have been appreciated by one and all.

You're always enthusiastic participants of every known holiday, plus a few you creatively came up with on your own. The costumes and decorations were also great.

Erika, enjoy your retirement; it's well-deserved. And to Lynda and the crew, we wish you well on your future endeavours. It's hard to say good-bye. We'll miss you all. Thanks for the memories.

Speaker: Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Fairclough: I ask all the members in this House to welcome the former Chief of Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in, Steve Taylor, sitting in the gallery with us today.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Fentie: I give notice to the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

the Yukon Liberal Party made a clear commitment in the recent election campaign to support the trade and export initiatives of local businesses and, in spite of many references by the Premier about the importance of infrastructure, the Liberal Party's election platform failed to identify the acquisition of long-term access to tidewater ports in Alaska as an essential part of the Yukon's infrastructure and guaranteed access to tidewater, specifically, to the port of Haines, Alaska, would give Yukon exporters such as Dakwakada Forest Products a competitive advantage in shipping Yukon-made forest products to overseas markets; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Liberal government to table a supplementary budget without delay to provide the necessary resources for the Yukon government to exercise its option to purchase port facilities in Haines, Alaska for the long-term benefit of Yukon businesses.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: If there are no further notices of motion, before calling ministerial statements today, the Chair will provide a ruling on the point of order raised by the official opposition House leader on June 28, 2000. The official opposition House leader raised the point of order while the Minister of Health and Social Services was replying to the comments made by opposition members to his ministerial statement on the process for reviewing alcohol and drug services.

The official opposition House leader stated that the minister was not addressing the subject matter of the ministerial statement. The Member for Whitehorse Centre, on the point of order, stated that he felt the minister was making a "general rebuttal" to the comments that were made by the opposition members.

In reviewing the matter, the Chair has returned to a ruling given by Speaker Bruce on November 24, 1999, and which was extensively quoted in a ruling given by this Chair on June 19, 2000. Members will recall that Speaker Bruce gave consideration to the practices of the Yukon Legislative Assembly and other Canadian legislatures and outlined five guidelines to be applied to ministerial statements.

One of those guidelines was that ministerial statements and the responses to them should be brief, factual and specific. The Chair notes the direction that the statements and the responses should be specific, meaning that the member speaking should adhere to the subject matter of the statement.

The Chair has reviewed the comments made by the Minister of Health and Social Services and found that the minister was speaking to diverse issues including mining incentives, oil and gas development, pipelines, student grants, youth leadership, tourism, an "older worker" pilot project and a government Web site. These cannot be viewed as being specific to the subject matter of the ministerial statement, which was on the process of reviewing alcohol and drug services.

The Chair took note of the comment by the Member for Whitehorse Centre that the minister was rebutting remarks made by other members. A review of the remarks of the opposition members reveals that the subjects outside the ministerial statement raised by the minister were not mentioned.

The Chair, therefore, finds that the point of order was well-founded and that the Minister of Health and Social Services had made remarks that were not specific to the subject matter of the ministerial statement on the review of alcohol and drug services.

In the future, the Chair will place greater emphasis on enforcing the guidelines found by Speaker Bruce to be applicable to this House. In particular, the Chair will be watchful to ensure that statements and responses are specific to the subject matter at hand and that they do not contain partisan debate or argument.

I thank the members for their attention.

Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier on the -

Speaker: Order please. I would like to have the opportunity to recognize you.

Mr. Harding: I am just so eager, Mr. Speaker. I apologize.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier on the budget and spending commitments. In debate in this House on June 12, the Premier made a firm pledge to Yukoners that all commitments in the budget were going to be honoured. I quote her from June 12, she said, "...we said we wouldn't pull the rug out from anybody." So, if there's a planned expenditure and a commitment made to Yukoners in this budget, they intended to follow through with it.

Is she still committed to honouring this pledge?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we indicated to Yukoners throughout the election campaign that we would live up to the existing commitments, that we would be mindful that there were expectations based upon the budget, and we also committed to Yukoners that we would be sound, prudent fiscal managers. After all, this is taxpayers' money, these are their dollars that we have been elected to manage, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

Mr. Harding: Well, that's excellent, Mr. Speaker, because perhaps she can solve something for us. Yesterday, the C&TS minister told the House that she knew best for the people of Old Crow and that a clear community priority, identified on record by the chief and council, will be chopped, and the chief confirmed this on the CHON-FM newscast this past noon. This runs contrary to what the Premier promised Yukoners.

I'd like to ask the Premier: will the Premier stand by her minister, or by her word and fund the community bus that is already in the budget?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, most importantly, I will stand behind the people of the Yukon, including the people of Old Crow, and the community bus was certainly raised as an issue with me during the election campaign as not something desired by the community. There are mixed messages as to whether or not that bus was the desire of the community.

There is also the issue that that bus - and I believe my colleague, the Minister of Community and Transportation Services outlined it yesterday - was put in the budget not at the request of the people of Old Crow but at the request of the then NDP government.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we showed written evidence that the request came from the chief and council - the duly elected chief and council of the community. She has heard from the duly elected MLA of the community, and she's showing extreme disrespect for the people of the community sitting here in Whitehorse dictating what community priorities are for rural Yukon.

Let me ask her again, because I didn't get a clear answer yet as to whether she is going to fund this bus or not. Will the Premier stand by her word as of June 12 in this House about specific commitments and funding those that were committed to in the budget, or will she stand by this minister with regard to this community bus?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would be showing extreme disrespect, and I would be acting as the former government had done if I did not listen to the concerns that were raised to me prior to the election campaign, during the election campaign and since we took office on May 6. There are some very real issues that need to be dealt with, and the Minister of Community and Transportation Services has outlined some of those.

Now the issue is if will we, as a government, be what we promised to be, which is sound, prudent fiscal managers, and live up to the commitments that were outlined in the budget. We agreed to do that. We also committed that we would listen to what people have to tell us, and I'm telling the member opposite - explaining to the member opposite - that there have been other concerns raised about that particular commitment. We are examining those concerns.

Question re: Old Crow community bus

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, she may be the Premier, but she's not the Chief of the Vuntut Gwitchin, who was on the radio, again at noon, stating that this is indeed a community priority.

Mr. Speaker, she said - I'm going to read the quote again so that everybody listening can hear - on June 12, "We said we wouldn't pull the rug out from anybody." So if there is a planned expenditure and a commitment made to Yukoners in this budget, we intend to follow through with it. Mr. Speaker, that's what this community bus is; it's a very symbolic issue for rural Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier, will she take the advice of the people of Vuntut Gwitchin, who put this forward to the government in this budget as a priority, and fund it as they committed to do in this House?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: What I am advising the member, as in my discussions with the Chief of the Vuntut Gwitchin on Tuesday at the general assembly - the Chief of the Vuntut Gwitchin asked me the same question. He said, "What are these questions about the bus?" That was his exact comment, and I said there have been issues and concerns that have been raised. We have heard some of those, and the Minister of Community and Transportation Services is looking into it. The Chief of the Vuntut Gwitchin at that time said to me, "I recognize that you have heard some concerns. Let's talk about them. Let's review this."

I said to the member opposite, as I said to all Yukoners, that, first and foremost, we would not pull the rug out from under people and that we'd live up to our commitments. I also said that we would be sound, prudent fiscal managers, and we're going to ensure that the expenditures that are made do what they are supposed to do. If there were a problem, it would be very imprudent of us not to at least examine what the problem is and try to address it.

Mr. Harding: The Liberal government is patronizing the communities while they sit here in Whitehorse deciding what's best for them. The C&TS minister said that, in her view, the community bus in the budget was - and I quote - inappropriate and ill-conceived. I want to ask the Premier how many commitments in the budget, which they said that they would honour to create certainty, do they plan to chop because they consider them ill-conceived?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The only patronizing is coming from the member opposite. We are listening to what people are expressing to us. There have been concerns that have been expressed about that particular expenditure. The member opposite indicates that there is correspondence that has been made available to us from the chief indicating that this was the chosen expenditure. What was the originating correspondence? Who put this line in the budget in the first place? Was it the NDP government saying, "This is what you want, now send us a letter saying yes you do"? Or was it the NDP government? Were they listening? Were they really listening to what people in Old Crow had to say? What I heard during the election was that they were not, and that's what we intend to do.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, that is so patently ridiculous, that the government would foist upon a community a community bus that they asked for. She should review the transcript of what the chief said on the news on CHON-FM.

Now, a pattern is quickly emerging with this Liberal government. Seniors and elders in Watson Lake have seen them pull back on the extended care; that has been chopped. People in Mayo have had their CDF funding chopped, in Faro people have had a promise for more ownership funding reneged upon, and now, in Old Crow, the Liberals say the community bus is history. Now, when the Premier said to me on June 12 that all commitments made will be followed, why was she not being honest with me or, more importantly, why was she not being honest with the people of Old Crow?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The member is attempting to accuse me of being dishonest. I would suggest that he may wish to withdraw that. My absolute honest comment, if the member wants to follow me around with a tape recorder - he seems to follow me around everywhere else.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: In Old Crow, the issue that was raised with me, prior to and during the election campaign, was the creek running through the dump, and the erosion at the dump site, which the government - and the previous government - had eight years to deal with it and had not. They refused to even examine it. That was raised at many doorsteps in Old Crow. What was also raised at doorsteps in Old Crow, before the election and after, was the issue of whether or not they wanted this bus. There were some safety concerns that were expressed by members of the community.

The Minister of Community and Transportation Services is quite rightly examining those concerns. That's what we were elected to do, and that's what we're doing. We're listening to the people of the Yukon, including the people of Old Crow.

Question re: Excellence awards

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question today for the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, I refer to the Yukon Liberal platform document and its heading, "Excellence in education". Ironically, it appears that the Yukon Liberal Party doesn't support excellence in education, as it opposed the Yukon excellence awards created by the previous Yukon Party government, under which Yukon students who achieved excellence could earn up to $9,200, over and above the student grant, to devote to their post-secondary education.

In a survey of parents and students in 1997, 84 percent of the parents and 62 percent of the students indicated they were supporting the awards. Yet both the Liberals and the NDP remain opposed. In fact, the NDP government cut them by approximately 50 percent.

My question for the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker: could he advise the House if the Liberal government will reverse its position in view of the overwhelming public support for this initiative - these awards - and reinstate the excellence awards to their full value? Or is he just going to carry through with the NDP government's plan to eliminate the awards altogether? Which course of action is the minister going to take?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, we have planned, of course, on assisting students by grants to further their education outside and inside the territory and, as the member opposite knows, we are already exercising the program that he's talking about.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, let's just look at what the Liberals are proposing. The Liberal plan is to increase the student grant by 20 percent but not support the excellence awards program.

Does the minister not realize that, under the Liberal Party plan, students who are entitled to receive the full value of awards will actually be losing some $6,500 of funding for their post-secondary education? Will the minister give his head a shake and correct this unfair situation? That's the difference.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do within this government is create equity for all students, so we felt it would be better to provide all students with the student grant whereby they can receive monies for post-secondary schooling within the territory and to assist them in going out.

The previous program did not allow an opportunity for all students, and we feel that it is our responsibility to be addressing the concerns and needs of all students.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, then you would think that this government would treat everyone fairly in all fields. Contrast that to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services' announcement on June 20 of up to $4,200 for a gold medal in the Yukon high performance assistance program for sports, but we do not support achieving excellence in education. How do the Yukon Liberals support this double standard? There is a potential reduction of over $6,500 for students for their post-secondary financial assistance but, on the other hand, we reward people in sports. Why not the same for education, which is equally if not more important, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is trying to imply that we have cut the excellence awards program when in fact we haven't. I informed the House during debate on Education that that program is still in place. We felt that we should provide greater emphasis for all Yukon students, providing opportunity for all Yukon students.

Just a footnote: the public at large should be aware of the fact that, in the supplementary we initiated, the member opposite voted against supplying grant monies to all students pursuing post-secondary education outside and in Yukon.

Question re: Student financial assistance

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. On Tuesday of this week, at the CYFN General Assembly, I listened with interest to the Premier responding to a question from a Kwanlin Dun youth. The Premier assured this young man that the 20-percent increase to student financial assistance that the Liberal Party campaigned on will apply to all Yukoners. Does the Premier include First Nations students in her category of "all Yukoners".

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I'll respond to that question about post-secondary funding. I first of all appreciate the number of youth present at the CYFN general assembly. It's certainly a model that I think all legislatures can learn from.

The question from the young gentleman that the Member for Mayo-Tatchun has repeated today is something I also addressed afterwards in conversation with him. And there was some confusion with respect to what First Nation post-secondary funding is and how that links with Government of Yukon funding, and I undertook to respond more fully to the young man and to have the Minister of Education and officials work with CYFN in responding to this issue - and Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development - and that's what we will do.

Mr. Fairclough: We haven't had the opportunity to debate the Liberal government supplementary budget, which includes funding for an increase in student financial assistance.

Can the Premier, who made the commitment at the CYFN general assembly in Burwash this week, advise the House if the supplementary budget that they tabled covers the commitment to First Nations youth by increasing their student funding by 20 percent?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The funding commitment in the supplementary budget is a 20-percent increase across the board to the Yukon's post-secondary education funding. That is a 20-percent increase to students who are attending post-secondary institutions within or outside of the territory, as the Minister of Education has just noted.

How that works in conjunction with Indian Affairs and Northern Development programming for post-secondary and specific First Nations programming and CYFN programming for post-secondary education funding is something that I undertook to examine in conjunction with my colleagues to determine how we could ensure that we were providing the maximum benefit. I undertook to provide that response to the young man in question, and I will certainly make a copy of that response for the member opposite as well.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the Premier said at the general assembly that this 20-percent increase was for all Yukoners. Perhaps the Premier was not aware that the First Nations students receive their financial assistance through the Department of Indian and Northern Development. When she made that commitment this week in Burwash, she said that all Yukoners were eligible for the 20-percent increase. Perhaps the Premier has used her special relationship with Ottawa to get DIAND to top up this financial assistance for First Nation students.

Is the Premier prepared to table any correspondence she has had with the federal minister indicating that DIAND is willing to increase its financial assistance to First Nation students by 20 percent?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I was fully aware that there are different programs that are made available to different Yukon students who are pursuing their post-secondary education. There are also a number of scholarships available.

What I undertook with the young man when I spoke with him afterwards was - because he was also not clear, as I was not clear - as to which programs fit in where and how those programs work with one another, to ensure that students receive the post-secondary funding, which they so clearly need.

As the member opposite knows full well, tuition increases have skyrocketed, with 112-percent increases at some post-secondary institutions. The objective is to ensure that we provide as many Yukon students as we can with an opportunity to further their education. That's the objective. That's what we're trying to do, and I'm sure the member opposite agrees with that.

The question is how do we do it and how do these programs work with one another. I undertook to get back to the young man who asked me the question, and speak about it also with the Grand Chief, and I will provide the member opposite with any correspondence and information in that regard.

Question re: Student financial assistance

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the Premier told Yukoners - she told people at the general assembly - that all students were eligible for the 20-percent increase. She made a commitment to Yukon First Nation students, but this matter has yet to be resolved government to government.

If DIAND refuses to increase the funding, will the Yukon government provide the funding and show this increase in another supplementary budget?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: We are committed to equitable treatment for Yukoners. We are also committed to students and we are committed to ensuring that young Yukoners, who want to travel either outside of this territory or within this territory, can further their education so that those skills can then be used here in Yukon. We have committed to them and expressed our commitment clearly, that we support post-secondary education and that we are interested in assisting students.

I furthered that commitment by stating to the young man that I would look at these programs and see where some programs ended and where Yukon kicked in, where Yukon programs ended and where there were other opportunities available. I said I would review this and that I would get back to the young man opposite, and I have indicated to the member opposite that I would provide him with that information as well. Clearly, this is an issue that needs to be addressed and we will do that.

Mr. Fairclough: The Premier said that all Yukoners were eligible for this 20-percent increase. The Member for Whitehorse Centre attended grads around the Yukon telling students that they will be eligible for a 20-percent increase. First Nation students, this summer, will be expecting to receive a 20-percent increase in financial assistance for this September, as the Premier said at the general assembly in Burwash this week. The Premier doesn't seem to have an agreement with DIAND. Her special relationship with the federal Liberals is not working. Instead of getting more money from the federal government, we are going to have to give them a contribution agreement. Can the minister assure this House that the increase funding will be made available before school commences this September?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: What the Yukon Liberal government committed to and stated in the election campaign and what we tabled in the budget is a 20-percent increase to the Yukon post-secondary grant. That's what we committed to; that's what we have done. This is the first time this grant has been increased since 1983. The members opposite, and the one member, had an opportunity, through their previous terms in office, to even examine this, and they didn't do it. We did it within the first two months of taking office. The other point and the point the member is making is how we intend to impact on how other agencies provide post-secondary financing. We will address that situation with those agencies and will address it in the best interest of Yukoners, as we have done on other issues.

Mr. Fairclough: The Premier made a commitment to Yukoners that all Yukoners were eligible for this 20-percent increase, and now she's backtracking. She says one thing one day and does another the next - a typical Liberal government move in the Yukon, Mr. Speaker.

She's bringing uncertainty to Yukoners. She told First Nation students at the general assembly that they were eligible for this increase, and now she's backtracking. I'll ask the minister: will she do what she said she was going to do and provide this 20-percent increase for funding for all Yukon students?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The 20-percent increase in the post-secondary grant is available to all students who are accepted by a post-secondary education institution. It's available to all Yukon students who choose to use it. First Nations can choose either the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development funding or the Yukon grant.

What I said at the CYFN General Assembly, and what I have said to all Yukoners, and what the Member for Whitehorse Centre has said is that we would increase the Yukon post-secondary grant, which is available to all Yukon students, by 20 percent. The answer, quite correctly, is yes.

Question re: Land claims, unresolved issues

Mr. Harding: More and more we're seeing a busload of commitments heading south in this Liberal government. You almost have to, sadly enough, follow them around with a video camera just to hold them accountable for what they say at one meeting and then say to another group of Yukoners.

Mr. Speaker, at the GA that I attended, I talked to a number of chiefs, and the issues of section 87 - taxation and loan repayment - were on many of their minds. In questions to the Premier, she stated that she was lobbying the federal Finance minister, Paul Martin, on section 87, giving them the clear impression that she was supporting First Nation chiefs, as they were around this table and she was being questioned. So I'd like to ask her today, because she hasn't told Yukoners yet: does she support Yukon First Nation chiefs in what they were proposing, or does she support Robert Nault and the federal Liberals who are saying no to these changes?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The member opposite would love to suggest that this is an either/or situation and invite me to choose sides. The member opposite should re-examine his preamble to the question. The member opposite asked what we have done to support First Nations in presenting their position on section 87 to the federal government. I'd be delighted to provide the member opposite with that information.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, she said she was lobbying the federal minister but has yet to put forward any clear position to Yukoners as to what she's saying when she's doing the lobbying.

Let me ask her. She said also that she had had a discussion with Paul Martin about this issue. I'd like to ask her how many times has she spoken with - aside from the election call that the Finance minister made to congratulate her on election night - the federal Finance minister to discuss section 87, and when can we expect him in the Yukon as she promised a week before the election?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The member opposite knows that the references made to the federal Minister of Finance by the Liberal Party and by me during the election campaign were that, with respect to section 87, we understood the issues and that we would work on presenting the case to the federal Finance minister - the case being the argument.

The member opposite knows that I made the point in the CHON-FM debate, which took place mid-campaign, that we would request a meeting with Minister Martin to advance this situation and to provide the minister with the information.

Since then, I have highlighted that commitment for Minister Martin, and I have followed up in discussions with both the Grand Chief and several of the First Nation chiefs, and we have concurred that we will follow up on that request by presenting, in writing, the information to Minister Martin. Once that letter has been signed off, I will provide it to the member opposite and to the House.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, what a difference. On April 10, she told Yukoners that the section 87 issue was, and I quote, not a difficult resolution. And, at that time, she told Yukoners that she was going to get Paul Martin to the gold show, back in May, to resolve this issue, because it was so easy in her view at that time to resolve. But the reality is starting to set in. We now know, based on her last answer, that she hasn't talked to the Finance minister, except for the congratulatory call he made to her on election night. And we also know - and First Nations in the Yukon know - that she has yet to take a public position on section 87 here in this territory or in this Legislature, so when she's saying she is lobbying for them and creating the impression that she's on their side, she has yet to tell anyone in the Yukon what her position is.

I want to ask her one more time, Mr. Speaker: is she in agreement with Yukon First Nations on the issue of section 87, or the position of the federal Liberals and Bob Nault, which says no changes?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is presuming to speak both for First Nations and for Minister Nault. Section 87 is an issue that we have spoken about with Minister Martin. The issue is that we have also worked with the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations in assisting in ensuring that the views of Yukon First Nations were put forward, not simply to Minister Martin but also to senior officials in the Department of Finance. This was with the knowledge of Minister Nault, as well, that this was going to be done - that we were putting forward our view of section 87.

We have begun our work on section 87 with the federal government. We have presented the case. We are continuing to do that. We will continue to do that until there is some resolution of this matter.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Ms. Tucker: 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 now call Committee of the Whole to order. Do members wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will recess for 15 minutes.

Recess

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

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

Chair: Committee is dealing with Public Service Commission general debate. Is there any further general debate?

Public Service Commission - continued

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, just to recap general debate last night - what occurred was some very interesting issues that came out of the debate. The minister responsible for the Public Service Commission revealed some very interesting but rather disturbing information with respect to the hiring procedures in the Yukon government. What I did discover in Committee debate was that the new Liberal government had recently implemented a hiring freeze on senior positions in government below the deputy minister level. Now it comes to the forefront that eight positions in the assistant deputy minister/director level have been frozen for the time being. Now, of the eight positions in that category that were frozen, the government has gone through proper procedures to fill three positions. We currently have five positions left vacant.

The minister referred to the hiring freeze as a "staff watch" and justified the so-called watch as being the only appropriate thing to do until the government of the day gets its house in order. Very interesting.

Well, Mr. Chair, as common sense should prevail, the political arm of government is not supposed to interfere with the hiring of public servants below the deputy minister level. So, this unprecedented action begs the question: what is this Liberal government keeping a close watch on?

When I asked the minister what the reason was for not filling these five positions, the minister stated that his government was simply implementing a freeze, like the previous Yukon Party government had done when it first took office in 1992. What the minister failed to say, however, was that, unlike the Liberal government today, when the Yukon Party came to power, it was saddled with a $64-million deficit, which was inherited from the previous NDP government. But this Liberal government is in a very, very fortunate position - an extremely fortunate position. They inherited, from the previous NDP government, a $56.2-million surplus as of March 31, 2000.

Back in the days when the Yukon Party took office, our government had no other choice but to take immediate steps to control the cost of government. A hiring freeze was implemented.

Now, the minister did offer another excuse for implementing a hiring freeze, and that was to get a handle on government. One has to just kind of speculate as to what exactly the minister meant by that. Does the minister mean that by keeping a watchful eye on those doing the hiring, the government will ensure the right choices will be made? Is that what the minister is saying by telling the House that they have to get a handle on government?

Now, this government has only been in office for a few short months, and already we have witnessed some pure partisan bunk, Mr. Chair. Whatever happened to open and accountable government? So much for promises, so much for the Liberal platform - It's All About the Future. It's all about our future under the careful control and watchful eye of the Liberals.

In spite of what the minister claims, a hiring freeze on the day-to-day operations of government is playing politics, and politics at its best.

As I stated yesterday, the exercise of a minister is not to micromanage government, but to set policy and give direction. The minister's job description does not include the hiring of public servants below the deputy minister level. As the minister knows full well, that responsibility lies within the purview of the Public Service Commission. So far the minister has given the excuse, the reason, for implementing a hiring freeze is to get a handle on government. It just does not wash, Mr. Chair.

As we know, this new Liberal government chose to adopt the budget of the previous NDP government. This would lead one to conclude that we are looking at the same staffing levels, that there should be no anticipated change in the immediate future; yet, all of a sudden this government has decided to implement an immediate freeze on hiring - just in a select category where political appointments can be suggested to the new deputy ministers that they appear to be hiring for the various portfolios. As far as I can see, there is no reason whatsoever for the minister, who has referred to this staff watch. It is just to fill these positions with Liberal Party supporters.

Now, what we have is a government that is politicizing the public service. Deputy ministers serve at the pleasure of the government of the day. The Yukon Liberal lawyers, who currently run the Government of the Yukon, have made some changes - the Deputy Minister of Justice, and not because the individual there wasn't doing a very good and capable job, but because they didn't like the job he was doing. It didn't conform to the way they wanted the Yukon to head.

We are going to see more and more of this, Mr. Chair. What I want to know from this minister is why this Liberal government is politicizing the public service here in the Yukon. Why are they taking this unprecedented step?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, with all due respect to the interpretation placed on the actions of this government by the member opposite, I don't really believe that it is an accurate assessment of the whole situation.

Yukoners saw fit to vote in a Liberal government because of the conduct of the previous governments in the territory.

I believe that Yukoners are also allowing a period of adjustment because it's the first time that the Yukon Liberal Party has held power in the territory. Yukoners understand, just as with any new job, there's a period of learning and a period of adjustment, a period where we're required to become fully aware of our responsibilities and our duties. We are becoming aware of the details of our respective assignments by the Premier, as mine are with the Public Service Commission, Education and Renewable Resources. They're rather substantive responsibilities. I take the job very seriously and, as implied by the member opposite, I do not micromanage.

I believe that, when this government took over, the transition team asked the departments to put the staffing of vacant senior positions on hold. I believe that this was a very responsible move, to enable new, incoming ministers to become totally familiar with their departments and for deputies to determine whether restructuring is required under our new mandate. What that means is we are assessing the ongoing programs that we inherited from the previous government.

We are looking at the applicability of them to our mandate.

I think Yukoners understand that you just can't throw everything out the door and totally start from scratch. There's a requirement, there's a transition period, and so in order for us to establish our fingerprint on government - and with all due respect to the deputy ministers, they have the responsibility to keep their departments going, and to keep the department's direction going, in anticipation of what the new government is going to mandate that department to do.

So, the ministers have no involvement at all with the competitive process, nor with positions that are occupied by employees now. We simply put a temporary hold on some competitions for vacant senior government positions, and it is duly up to the deputy ministers to micromanage their department. That is their responsibility, and over time, as our policies evolve into the Liberal philosophy as outlined in our platform, these will be instilled in the departments. And I think Yukoners understand that fully and are willing to give this government the opportunity to do that responsibly, accountably, and we are doing it openly, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: I'd like to thank the minister for his response. Some of the areas that he covered off, he did so very, very well. The minister stated that "establish our fingerprint on government." Well, may I suggest to the minister, Mr. Chair, that how he is achieving this is by imposing a staff watch on the government. It is a staff-watch that would not fill a number of senior positions, appoint deputy ministers right under the Premier of the Yukon, provide the Liberal Party supporters who need to in-fill those jobs with instructions. The minister is absolutely correct when he says there's a learning curve at the beginning of a new mandate or after an election. It's called "the honeymoon period" and this is going to be a very short honeymoon period indeed, given the direction that they're taking the Yukon.

Of paramount importance is that the whole group of government under the deputy minister level should not be politicized. All those positions are under the purview of the Public Service Commission, and it is political interference when these positions are filled with the faithful Liberal Party supporters, of which the numbers just happen to correspond to the number of vacant positions at the senior levels. So, I don't expect it to happen in the next day or two while this Legislature is still sitting, but I am sure as soon as we rise, all these appointments will come more into focus. The issue I wish to make, and I'm very, very uncomfortable with this minister even allowing the government to move into that area, is politicizing the public service.

That is the issue that we have on the floor of the House.

The minister went on in his rebuttal just a few minutes ago to say that they're restructuring. It's interesting to note yesterday in general debate, when the minister was asked about restructuring, there wasn't any. Everything is maintained the same; but now we're restructuring. The minister might want to review Hansard from yesterday to see what he said before he contradicts his yesterday's statement, today, Mr. Chair.

So, I am at a loss. The only logical explanation for what is occurring with this staff watch is that this new Liberal government is politicizing the public sector of this government. That is very much the case.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I suppose that there is no way we are going to reach agreement on this. I have attempted every which way to be very forthright with the Member for Klondike, to be open, to be accountable with the Member for Klondike, and he is insisting and unaccepting of the rationale that I have provided.

We have not, at this time, given any direction to deputies on whom to hire. The deputies are working closely with the ministers in getting a sense of providing the ministers with information on what is currently occurring within the departments, relative to programs. We are formulating instruction back to the departments, through the deputy ministers, of how we would like to see their departments move with respect to implementing programs. That will speed up over the summer as we become more and more familiar with the responsibilities of the department, and at no time have any of the ministers indicated any lack of accountability on their part to do that with respect to their departments.

So, the inference the member is trying to pass on to the Yukon public is that we're just sitting in our offices planning how to usurp the authorities and responsibilities of deputy ministers. The member is casting aspersions on the Public Service Commission, which is totally uncalled for.

I'm sure he realized that the Public Service Commission works under its own act, and that there is clear division between what politically can be inferred to the Public Service Commission, and therefore we don't go there. We respect that boundary. We also respect the capabilities of the deputy ministers to fill those positions as they see fit, and that is dependent on the direction we provide for program delivery.

I cannot agree with the member opposite in his interpretation of how he sees this government going. I am sure that we could go on at length with discussions back and forth across the floor. I respect his opinion. I will make every effort to work with the Public Service Commission to understand fully its responsibility. I believe that I have indicated a number of times the value we have in our public servants. I have talked to numerous public servants, getting a feeling for how they feel the departments for which I am responsible are.

So, we want to increase the free flow of information - up, down, sideways. The front-line workers do an incredible job facing the public at large, as they come in. They want to provide a service to Yukoners. Therefore, it's incumbent on the ministers to listen to those concerns, provide direction to the department through the deputy minister, and the deputy minister, in turn, manages his department accordingly.

Mr. Jenkins: It sounds an awful lot like bafflegab, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, before we go on, I want to make one thing abundantly clear to the minister. Casting aspersions upon anyone's character in this House is not allowed and, had I been doing so, I could be called to order by any member of this Legislature as well as by the Chair himself, and such has not been the case. What I will cast aspersions on are the unwritten Liberal policies that are coming more and more into focus in this government.

We won't see it immediately, Mr. Chair, but the Member for Faro yesterday read into the record the names of all of the loyal Liberals who will probably be receiving posts within government in the very, very near future. Many of those positions will be under the purview of the Public Service Commission.

So, how you accomplish that, Mr. Chair, I don't know, but on the surface it looks like blatant, political patronage and blatant, political interference in the public service.

What this minister is doing, Mr. Chair, is politicizing the public service, and that's what I certainly take exception to.

Let's just cover another area where the minister contradicted himself, Mr. Chair. Yesterday, there was no restructuring. Today, we're restructuring. What is it?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I do respect the opinion of the member opposite and he did agree with me somewhat in that, yes, we do have a learning curve, and yes, he's casting aspersions on unwritten policy. Well, that's the point. The policy hasn't been fully developed and I think that's a responsibility that we have. We have to look carefully at what's there now, to modify, to create new policy as it reflects the direction that this government wants to go, and then the respective departments will organize themselves as they best see fit to accommodate the policy as it evolves.

I mean, I'm sure it's like any business plan where you don't proceed down the road with a sketch plan. You want to develop a plan and involve the deputy ministers in that planning. So that is really where we are right now, and I believe that's being responsible and then being accountable for your actions, which I think that we have continually stressed in this House that we are going to be.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, the minister referred to a sketch plan, or a game plan or a business plan - I'd like to point out to the minister that he has none of the above. There is probably a road map, and that road map is contained in the minds of some of our famous Yukon Liberal lawyers that currently run this government and provide a tremendous amount of advice to the government of the day.

The major concern, Mr. Chair, is the politicizing of the public service. That is the issue. There is no reason whatsoever, within the public service, for this staff watch. There is no logical explanation whatsoever, within the Public Service Commission, for a staff watch. That staff watch is a political decision, Mr. Chair. Now that political decision was made for what reason?

Now, we're starting to get into another area. Yesterday, we weren't restructuring; today, it's being used as a reason for this staff watch. Now why was yesterday the minister saying there was no restructuring and today there is restructuring? Which way is it? Are you restructuring, or are you not restructuring?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, maybe restructuring wasn't the proper word. As I indicated yesterday, the learning curve also involves the language that's used in the House. I will catch on; I will. I will be a little more specific and a little more careful, I guess.

What I'm trying to indicate is that, as a result of the direction this government goes, there may not even be the necessity to reorganize departments. At this particular junction, we're absolutely sure of that, so I beg the member opposite's indulgence until I catch on to House lingo, if that's what's required here. But, again, I'm just trying to be open with the member. I'm trying to answer the questions fully. I might reach that point sometime this summer.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, let's simplify it for the minister. Was the staff watch a political decision - yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, yes, it was.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now, the reason for the staff watch was in order to appoint certain people within government ranks - yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, absolutely not.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The certain people we're referring to, Mr. Chair, were mentioned by the Member for Faro yesterday, so we know full well whom we're speaking of. I don't want to get into the actual names of these individuals, I don't feel that that is the issue. They're well-known Liberal supporters or well-known individuals who did a tremendous amount to get this government elected and now they're there for their rewards. The member does recognize these individuals are there and do exist and they are looking for rewards. I guess we can ask the minister another yes-or-no question.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: You want a yes-or-no answer to what, specifically?

Chair: Order please. I would just like to remind members to please not use the word "you". Rather, please direct your comments through the Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, the question was a specific one. There is a group of individuals, very well-known Liberal Party supporters. Will the minister be appointing them to some of these roles in government - yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I will not, because that's not my job. But neither the Public Service Commission nor the departments will be appointing those individuals to any positions mentioned in the staffing watch.

Mr. Jenkins: I'll just leave that for now. We will be watching with bated breath to see where these individuals do pop up in government, in what form and in what role. I suggest to the minister, Mr. Chair, that the information that is flowing through that wonderful rumour mill is that some of these appointments are imminent.

Mr. Chair, let's just go back to this restructuring. I still didn't get a very definitive answer from the minister. We kind of skirted all around the edges. Yesterday, we were not restructuring; today, we are looking a restructuring, but the minister may have misspoken himself with respect to the word "restructuring" today, yet he had a very scripted answer in front of him today. He wasn't just speaking from memory.

I would ask the minister to kind of have a look at this and be more specific as to what the government is doing. Will they be restructuring or not? Yesterday, they were not restructuring; today, it appears that we have a different answer and that they will be. Which way is it?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, as I tried to explain to the member opposite, I am not quite familiar with the terminology to be used in the House. Apparently, he's not going to allow me that grace period, so I will try and be more explicit in my answers and cognizant of every word that I provide to the member opposite. I would like to refer then to the DMs considering an assessment of their programs pending the direction that we provide to the department through the DMs.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, if the minister doesn't know - and I can understand that there is quite a learning curve, in spite of the fact that he has been sworn in as a minister and he's earning the big bucks. Now, I can understand that he probably is not quite familiar with everything so I'd be happy with a legislative return on this restructuring issue. If the minister would agree to provide one of those, we could move on.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I have just indicated to the member opposite that we are in that transition period. We are assessing existing programs with respect to our respective departments. Over the summer, as we become more and more familiar with the intricacies of the programs within our respective departments and as we develop policy reflecting the outline as per our program document, our mandate document, It's All About the Future, these changes will then be passed on to the departments through the DMs for implementation. But this is a transitional thing. It's not something that happens at the flick of a switch.

It's going to take the summer and we will be assessing and preparing and implementing the change over a gradual period of time.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, let the record reflect that the minister has not answered the question. I specifically asked the minister a question. If he can't answer the question on the floor of the Legislature, he has another option. That's to provide an answer in a written format by way of a legislative return. I asked the minister if he would be kind enough to provide a legislative return on this restructuring initiative - yes or no? It's a simple yes-or-no answer.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: It is not a simple yes-or-no answer, and the member knows that. He's fully cognizant, he's an intelligent being, and surely he understands that transition is gradual. The programs, the policies, are being developed. It's a gradual transition that, in respecting the ongoing works of the departments now, you just don't throw everything out the door and expect to start up the next day.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, that's not the way government works, Mr. Chair. The departments function, and they continue to function irrespective of who the government of the day is. The minister is elected, the deputy minister is appointed by the government of the day. That's supposed to be the only position in government that serves at the pleasure of the current government. Below that, these professional individuals in our public service sector are under the domain of the Public Service Commission.

Now, if there's going to be restructuring - as the minister yesterday said there wasn't, and today there will be - he can stand on his feet and advise the House what this restructuring will entail. The option is to send over a legislative return in a week or whatever timelines are convenient for the minister. But I would like to see it in at least the next month. Now, that will give them ample time to sit down with his colleagues and come to some understanding of what this restructuring is going to entail. Will the minister commit to a legislative return, yes or no? The option is to stand up and go over the whole restructuring program, which, obviously, the minister hasn't had time to be fully apprised of and is not conversant with. So, I'm not going to hold the minister up. I don't want to hold the department up. So, the easiest format is to provide it by way of a legislative return. Will the minister do that - yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: No.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I guess the option is for the minister to stand up and explain what form the restructuring is going to take - how this restructuring form is going to take; timelines, terms and conditions, the whole gamut.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, it looks like we'll have to be here another month. I guess we'll have to be here all summer because it seems that the member opposite - I've tried desperately here to give him an answer and that is unacceptable so I'll just have to repeat the same thing over and over and over, and like my colleague in Tourism, keep track, that as we develop our policy - and the member opposite is absolutely right, the government doesn't stop, he is fully aware of that. So I am attempting as best I can to keep in touch with my department responsibilities through the DMs. I will return to the House for as long as it takes, responding to the member opposite that, as we develop our policy reflecting our plans for the future, they will be passed on to the departments through the DMs, who will conduct the assessments, who will make the decisions to micromanage and implement those policies down through the department.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, yesterday the minister categorically stated that there was to be no restructuring; today we learn that there will be restructuring. So, all I'm asking from the minister is what form will that restructuring take? And the easiest way for him to respond so that he doesn't waste the time of this House - or continue to waste the time of this House because he obviously doesn't have the answers at his fingertips - is to provide it by way of legislative return, and I would ask that the minister do so, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I've already indicated to the member opposite that I will not be providing a legislative return, and I will, again, apologize, probably for the third or fourth time, for using the word "restructuring," I hope that the member opposite would accept the word "assessment" in lieu of my using the inappropriate term.

Mr. Jenkins: So, what I hear now is that the minister misspoke himself yesterday. Has he advised Hansard accordingly and corrected the record? Can't do that. Has he corrected the record through the appropriate manner?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I'm attempting to be as open and upfront with the member as possible. Maybe he can instruct me of what the appropriate way to do it is, then. To erase a word, to change a word, to modify - what is the appropriate process - and I'll defer to the member opposite's vast experience in the House?

Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Chair. The written record of what transpires in this Legislature is contained in Hansard and after it is into that, it is a verbatim transcript of what occurs here, and usually when ministers make a statement - or always when ministers make a statement - they're held accountable for their statements. If what the minister is saying is that he misspoke himself yesterday, correct the record. But how often has this occurred? How much of this information that we've painfully gleaned from this minister during this debate is he going to have to correct?

Now, I go through it in quite a bit of detail, spend quite a bit of time going over the answers the minister provided yesterday - not just to me but to the Member for Watson Lake and to the Member for Faro - looking at the questions and responses, just to ensure there is a smooth flow of information that's consistent.

The information that minister provided yesterday and that he is providing today is not consistent.

If it's because the minister misspoke himself on one word, that's fine. He can correct the record. But how inconsistent should what he said yesterday be today? Is the minister trying to manipulate himself out of a position that he found himself in? What's the problem here?

Now, I can understand that the minister doesn't have a complete and thorough knowledge of his portfolio. The simplest way would be to provide it by way of a legislative return. What's the minister's problem with providing a legislative return on this subject?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Again, I did request guidance from an experienced colleague in the House. He has refused to provide that. I will, for the fifth time and for the record, apologize if I have misspoken. I would ask the record to amend the word that I used yesterday; namely, "restructuring" to be replaced by "assessment".

I am not sure what more I could do. The member brought these specific words to my attention. Now, I have attempted every which way to amend the record appropriately by standing here in the House. I do believe that, during the campaign, we had said that if we made mistakes, we would stand in the House and acknowledge those mistakes. I have done that. What more can I possibly do?

Mr. Jenkins: Well, for one, answer the question on the restructuring plan.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, for the sixth time, I'm going to ask that the member accept my request and apology for misspeaking the apparently inappropriate word of "restructuring" and ask him to replace his questions, including the phrase "assessment".

Mr. Jenkins: Let's go under the premise that the minister said yesterday there would be no review. If we change his word yesterday, there's no review yesterday, and if we change his words today, there'll be a review today. So, we still have a difference in the position the minister took yesterday from today if we just change that one word.

Yesterday, there was no review. Today, there will be a review. All I'd like the minister to answer is this: what would that review entail?

Now, I understand that he's probably not conversant with all aspects of this portfolio and I'd ask the minister to provide a legislative return. What's the minister's hang-up with providing a legislative return?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, as I have indicated in previous answers, I cannot provide a legislative return, because of the natural process of transition between governments. It takes time. We're assessing the ongoing programs within the current government. We are - as quickly as possible, with the exception of the time we spend in the House - attempting to pass a budget, which is, by the way, a budget that we have assumed responsibility and accountability for. We want to create certainty by passing the budget, by getting people to work this summer and creating a degree of certainty for them to work this summer. But the member opposite is choosing to review, in semantical terms, language that I have five or six times admitted in the House that I had misspoken.

I have also tried to provide information to the member on his question that it takes time to implement our policies fully, and he's absolutely right.

The business of government continues on. So, as we are building up on that policy and evaluating the existing programs with departments and how those policies will mesh through the direction of the DMs as we provide direction and instruction, it's going to take time. It's not like the flick of a switch. It's not that I can sit down and provide in clear, definitive writing at this specific moment and then present this as a legislative return. It's impossible to do at this time.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, let me tell you where I'm at, Mr. Chair. I'm prepared to clear general debate and clear this department, but I need a commitment from the minister to provide this information. Now I understand that he doesn't have it at his fingertips. What is the minister's problem with providing it by way of legislative return? If there is anyone holding up the business of this House, it's this minister because he is failing to provide the information that's being requested, and there's no justification other than that he has been told that he can't do it that way by someone upstairs. I don't know who it is. All I'm looking for is a legislative return on whether the minister wants to refer to it as a "review" or a "restructuring" or an "assessment". That's fine. Then we clear the department and move on. Stop impeding the flow of business in this House. There are ways to address it and speed it up.

I was hoping, Mr. Chair, that this minister could see the lights and recognize that he has brought things to a grinding halt by not providing information, and I would urge him - urge him, Mr. Chair - to provide this information by way of legislative return, because it's obvious he doesn't understand or have a full briefing on this area, and that's understandably so. He's a new minister in a new job. So I don't know what his hangup is with a legislative return, but I would ask that he just provide one so we can just move on and clear the department.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I am totally mystified that the member opposite is not understanding what I am trying to give by way of an answer. I am not in any way deliberately impeding the progress of this House. I am desperately trying to accommodate the member opposite by providing him with best knowledge at this time.

I would be more than willing to sit down with him, in an incremental way, over time, and provide information to him, directly, as we get our program up and running, and provide responsible direction to the deputy ministers, to be implemented by them in their respective departments. I don't know what more I can provide to the member opposite at this time. I am totally mystified, quite frankly.

Mr. Jenkins: Would the minister have any problem with incremental legislative returns, once every two weeks, spelling out where we're headed. What's the problem? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, no.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, let the record reflect that the minister is impeding the flow of business in this House. Now, all of us want to be somewhere else, I'm sure. All of us want to move on with the business of the House. In fact, I'm sure for a few days, this government thought they would be in and out. But it's our responsibility as opposition to hold this government accountable. What this government is doing is holding up the business of government by not providing answers.

Now, the minister has agreed to sit down with me and give me briefings every couple of weeks. I would like something in black and white. What is the problem with a legislative return every couple of weeks, spelling out where we're going? I'd like some concrete information. A briefing - we can get into the semantics of their meaning and wordsmithing - of, well, I didn't mean that, you misinterpreted what I said. But when I have a legislative return, I know exactly that someone within the department will have to take the time to spell out these new initiatives or these restructuring or reviews or assessments and where we're heading. It will have to be thought through thoroughly before they're provided. Indeed that should be the course of action for all government business, but the course of action we see from this minister today is one of refusal to cooperate with the business of this Legislature, refusing adamantly - no.

Now, there's one good thing about no, the minister can always change his mind. But after you have said yes, it's very difficult to reverse it. So, I'd ask the minister to really consider what he has said to my request for a series of legislative returns over the course of the summer, if that what he wishes, or one legislative return. It doesn't matter with respect to this issue. Could the minister provide the information in that format, please?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: No.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Chair, let the record once again reflect that this minister is holding up the business of the House. It's the government of the day that is refusing to provide information on their one initiative. They'll provide it to me in a verbal format over time, but they will not provide it in a written format. Why?

Could I ask the minister to pay attention to what's going on? I've asked a question; I'd like a response, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, apologies to the member opposite. Would you please repeat the question?

Mr. Jenkins: Exactly as I said. Mr. Chair, the issue is that the minister has agreed to provide the information in a verbal format. That has been agreed to, and I've asked for it in a written format so that there's no uncertainty surrounding what was said and how it was said. Now, what is the minister's hangup with providing this information in a written format by way of a legislative return?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I will provide, in writing, progress reports, if that's what the member wants, and will circulate it to all members of the House.

Mr. Jenkins: Now we're moving along. I didn't know what the minister's hangup was. So he agreed to provide it in written format. Just one little caveat on that - by way of a legislative return.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: No.

Mr. Jenkins: What is the minister's hangup with a legislative return? Could he kindly explain in detail what is the problem with providing this information by way of a legislative return?

Let the record reflect that the minister doesn't know. He has to ask his colleagues as to why he should answer the question in the negative. He's not going to do it, but he doesn't know why. That's the bottom line, and he's just getting advice accordingly, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, the art of compromise is a wonderful thing. It's give and take. It's providing for progress in certain areas. I've agreed to provide to the member opposite, in writing, progress reports and provide to all members of the House the progress on how I will be implementing programs through my respective departments.

Mr. Jenkins: I'd like to know why the minister has a problem with providing it by way of a legislative return, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, again my understanding of a legislative return is that it is items and summary on any given subject, and what I have offered to provide is more detail on progress through a written report to the member opposite.

Mr. Jenkins: Another Liberal lame-duck excuse, Mr. Chair. Let's try that once again. What's the real reason why the minister was advised not to provide a legislative return by his Cabinet colleagues?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, he'll get his legislative reports.

Mr. Jenkins: Legislative returns or reports. Are they the same? Do we understand legislative returns?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: Just about half an hour to clear something so simple, Mr. Chair. Let the record reflect how much this minister is impeding the flow of business in this House.

I have no further general debate. We can move on.

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

We'll turn to the line items.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair: Are there any questions on allotments?

Finance and Administration in the amount of $500,000 agreed to

Chair: Are there any questions on the statistics?

On Pay and Benefits Management

Are there any questions on the statistics of pay and benefits management?

Pay and Benefits Management in the amount of $918,000 agreed to

Chair: Are there any questions on the allotments? Are there any questions on the statistics?

Staff Relations in the amount of $867,000 agreed to

Chair: Are there any questions on the allotments?

Workers' Compensation Fund in the amount of $1,912,000 agreed to

On Planning and Research

Chair: Are there any questions on the statistics on staff development?

Any questions on the recoveries?

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures for the Public Service Commission in the amount of $9,910,000 agreed to

Chair: We will move now to the capital budget, page 10-2.

On Capital Expenditures

Chair: We will now proceed to the Department of Renewable Resources.

Department of Renewable Resources

Chair: Do members wish to take a five-minute recess so that we can get the resource person for Renewable Resources?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a five-minute recess.

Recess

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will start with general debate on Renewable Resources. Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The total proposed expenditures of the Department of Renewable Resources reflect a decrease of $525,000, or three percent of our 1999-2000 forecast.

In O&M, the decrease is $34,000, or less than one-quarter percent. This is largely due to $45,000 one-time funding received in 1999-2000 for forestry-related work together with revotes of unexpended funds, totalling $94,000, for the state of the environment reporting and habitat protection work for the Yukon protected area strategy.

My government is very interested in assisting with the promotion of new recycling initiatives and $100,000 has been identified for this purpose.

My government will continue to provide NGOs with some assurance of stability in funding, and additional funds are being provided to the following organizations for the indicated purposes.

There is $20,000 budgeted to the Yukon Agricultural Association, which will assist them with a number of initiatives in which our government has interest, including the Klondike harvest fair, education in the classroom, careers in agriculture and consultation on various agriculture-related issues.

Also, $40,000 has been budgeted to assist the Yukon Trappers Association with fur marketing, and $20,000 has been budgeted to assist the Fish and Game Association with various initiatives.

The remaining difference in O&M is attributed to the effect of vacancies in the 1999-2000 years.

The major initiative most of the branches will be involved in is the continued preparation for devolution. We will be implementing a regional management structure, so that all of our department services can be delivered in rural communities in an integrated manner. The entire structure has not been finalized and I will be providing the Legislature with details when I am in a position to do so.

With the funds provided through this budget, the department will continue to provide critical support of key government initiatives such as land claims, devolution and the formulation of the development assessment process.

I would now like to make a few comments on the capital budget. In capital the decrease is $491,000, or 21 percent. This decrease is due largely to the fact that the 1999-00 figures reflect the first supplementary of $191,000 for the various job-creation initiatives with respect to campground facilities as well as revoted monies totalling $263,000 included in Supplementary No. 2, and the inclusion of $30,000 in funding for production of a video on bear safety. Without the effect of these three items, we would have reflected a net decrease of $7,000.

Some new and changing initiatives on the capital side include $5,000 that has been identified for a new conservation education learning resource project. This will enable the department to commence work on the production of some education and public awareness materials. In addition, $97,000 has been identified for the Yukon protected areas strategy-related initiatives; $30,000 has been identified to begin an assessment of the mule deer population in the Yukon.

Mr. Chair, that covers the major new and changing initiatives in my department, and we are looking forward to a productive year. I'd be happy to answer any questions the members might have in general debate.

Mr. McRobb: I would like to start, first of all, by reminding everyone how important this department is. The Department of Renewable Resources has the responsibility for protecting the Yukon's renewable resources - fish and game and so on - as well as administering the agricultural industry. There certainly is a need to balance development in the territory. That balance can be found within this department.

I know that one of the concerns of Yukoners about four years ago was the possibility that this department could be folded in with Economic Development. Certainly, that is something we did not agree with. Our policy was to keep it a distinct, operating department. In that regard, I do have some questions for the minister. I would like to start by asking him what his priorities for this department are.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, as I have indicated, with respect to the reviews of the budgets for the two previous departments, of course our intent is to create an effective transition and to review ongoing programs. In essence, I would like to ensure that there's a balance between resource development and environmental protection; with all due respect to the members of the Vuntut Gwitchin, to assist them in their opposition to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil and gas development, and recognize that the interests of environment and the economy are not in conflict. I think that is very important. We want to create certainty. We want to let all players in the territory know - both the environmental concern aspects in the territory, as well as economic industry in the territory - what the rules are. We will be developing clear, definitive guidelines for that purpose.

I would also like to see the department recognize that Yukoners can work together to prepare clear environmental and economic agenda goals; provide Yukoners with certainty of the environment by enforcing the Environment Act; ensure the audit that is required under the Environment Act is completed and, as a matter of fact, I believe that one significant step in that audit is the release of the environmental report.

I'm sure the member opposite knows that my history has always been where my heart is, and that is with respect to environment and wildlife issues. My whole professional career has been attributed to moving in that direction. I know that the member opposite lives in one of the most beautiful parts of the territory and we would like to see that preserved in different ways. I know that the member opposite has stood up several times and extolled the virtues of his area of the territory and I know that he wants to work in the best interest of that area and represent his constituents appropriately.

In order to do that, I think that we have already indicated that we would be moving into a review process of the Yukon protected areas strategy and would work toward enshrining that protected areas strategy in a form of legislation. We all want to stay and live in the territory. We respect the nature that we have here. We want to work with the renewable resource councils. We want to work with the Fish and Wildlife Management Board.

We want to work with all those interests that can focus and assist us as a government in expressing the wishes of all Yukoners in keeping this area of Canada in as wonderful a condition as it is. But we also recognize that, to live here, we have to work here. We have to provide sustenance on the table and, therefore, we do have to come to mutual agreement on how we'll achieve that with economic interests in mind.

So, I don't think that the member opposite would disagree with me in that we do have to find that balance, but I know, just as he does, that I have an interest to work with the department in fulfilling their commitments and obligations to look after the renewable resources of our territory.

Mr. McRobb: I'd like to thank the minister for that and certainly can agree with him on the beauty and importance of the Kluane area. The Member for Klondike says it is much more substantial than his area and I would agree with him, too. Certainly there are a number of people out my way who have an interest in issues with this department and, as the minister knows - or, if he doesn't know I'm sure he'll find out soon enough if he ever goes to a public meeting in Haines Junction regarding fish or wildlife. Those meetings are usually well-attended and attended by well-informed people. I would caution him that if he does go, he'd better be fully up to speed on his briefing notes and take a contingent of personnel along with him, just in case.

I'd like to thank the minister for identifying some of his priorities and I'd like to ask him what else he hopes to achieve over the next four years.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I have spent a considerable amount of time in the member opposite's riding over the years. Wetlands were my main interest in an over 20-year period with an organization that I was involved with, and studied considerably a number of wetlands in the whole of the member opposite's riding, right from the border crossing. As a matter of fact, it was a cooperative probing with the Alaskans on the Tetlin Wildlife Refuge, down into Scotty Creek, down through Pickhandle, Johnson Creek, and beautiful wetlands nestled in the Shakwak valley. I've also spent time on the land in the Kloo Lake area, Jarvis Creek, worked in Dezadeash and the outlet to Dezadeash - the Six Mile - and worked with First Nations in the area.

So I'm not at all opposed to going and meeting the fish and wildlife interests in his area, even in this capacity, and I'm not afraid to go alone. I think that within a reasonable amount of time, I would be able to competently represent the department there, and bring back the interests and concerns that would be provided me through mutual concern, through respective listening to the concerns that members have out in that area.

I would also like to encourage sustainable uses of our natural resources. As the member opposite knows, we have in debate, in Question Period, talked about the forest industry. I'm sure that the member is certainly aware of the details provided from the Member for Watson Lake in that area, so I have encouraged that we open dialogue, that we sit down and review those concerns, that we make the federal government aware of our inherent responsibilities through devolution, that we want to clearly identify with the federal government that we assume the responsibilities and will be accountable for the management of the forest resource. For all of south Yukon really, the interests of forestry are related - to work with other levels of government, like I had mentioned earlier.

With all First Nations with the renewable resource councils - I have already sent out requests to meet with the specific renewable resource councils. I have already met with the interests from Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. I have read some fairly comprehensive reports by the Yukon Conservation Society. I met with the land use planning group for all of Yukon, in structuring the land use commission for north Yukon.

The member opposite, I'm sure, is aware of how comfortable I feel with the portfolio of Renewable Resources. I have committed to support the department and attempt in every way to provide clear direction through the deputy minister to the department and really keep in touch with the progress that is being made by the department as the responsibilities of devolution are marching down the road.

As a matter of fact, the member opposite had tangentially mentioned the agricultural aspects, even in his own riding. I hope to be travelling to an agricultural ministers meeting in eastern Canada, hopefully leaving tomorrow, should the gods will it and we can progress through the review of the Renewable Resource budget in a competent and efficient way. I will make every attempt to answer questions, again to members opposite, but I am willing to again commit to answering questions.

We also recognize that we do have to support trapping as a way of life in the territory; support the creation of a Yukon advisory council that provides input into forestry management decisions, prior to devolution; recognize the magnitude of the project of taking on the forest aspects in the Yukon; recognize the sensitivity of our rehabilitative capabilities within harvested areas and the time it takes for timber to grow in the area, and; develop forest legislation in conjunction with the First Nations, recognizing the valuable traditional knowledge that they could impart in the design of that legislation.

Mr. McRobb: I'd like to thank the minister for that.

I'd like to ask him what the key policy areas are in this department. There are a number of key policy areas, and I'd like to hear his version of what they are and whether any of them will be under review or be changed in the course of this mandate.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, there are existing policies on the Yukon protected areas strategy, on the Environment Act, on the Wildlife Act. I mean, these are guiding acts that will have impact by policy as it's developed.

Again, I would respectfully ask the member opposite to consider that we have only been at the job for two and a half months and that there is a transition period during which we are assessing the existing policies. In the meantime, we will be developing or looking at those policies to see how our government will effect the changes to those policies. So, it's unfortunate, but I can't provide specific details at this time, and I request the member opposite to grant me a period of time when I could get a competent and qualified answer back to him.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Chair, I'm not demanding anything unreasonable, and I do understand that he has been in this position for only a couple of months and that more time is needed to establish a number of these policy areas. However, I'm also aware that it's common for a party to have developed, even prior to an election, a position on a number of key policy areas, and I'm sure the Liberal Party is no exception to that.

What I would like to hear from him, basically, is which direction this government is going in on some of these policy issues. I'll give him a specific one: the wolf kill policy, caribou enhancement program policy. Where does this Liberal government stand when it comes to that issue?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, with respect to the existing wolf management program, the current policy is that the department does not support the lethal means of wolf control management. I believe that is a wise and humane policy to consider.

If the member opposite has been listening to the debate on other jurisdictions in my care, I don't believe it would be very prudent to just go in and totally wipe the slate clean of all existing policies and all existing programs. These things have to be looked at in light of their effectiveness, and that's what we are going to do. We are going to recognize the values that are already inherent within the department - their programs - and be careful and prudent in our evaluations of those programs, so the aspect of the wolf management program is again, as I mentioned, premised on a non-lethal approach and is currently under review. The proposal coming forward right now is from the Alsek RRC.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Chair, that's all well and good, but I'm not clear on the answer. Is the minister saying that wolf kills are off the table, or is he saying they're on the table? Because it sounds like, in one breath, he is saying that it's up to the department. If it's an option, then that will be considered, but, in another breath, I think he's saying that non-lethal means will only be considered. So can he clarify for me what the policy is on that?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I thought that I'd given the member opposite a fairly comprehensive answer at this time; that I did preface all my remarks with the fact I'm still becoming aware and cognizant of the programs within the department. One of them is the wolf management program and, at the present time, the policy is the non-lethal approach to wolf management. I did not, in any way, mention lethal means and I will, within the next couple of weeks as a matter of fact, be provided explicit details on the whole wolf management program.

Mr. McRobb: Okay, Mr. Chair. That sounds very interesting. The minister said this policy issue is under review. Can he explain why it's under review, if it's not on the table? Are they considering changing the position on it, or just what?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I mentioned - and I will be supplying more detail to the member opposite - that the current program is under review in the sense that we have a non-lethal approach to wolf management in the Alsek area and the results of that program will be presented to me in a couple of weeks. Along with that, there will be recommendations included with respect to wolf management. So, I can't provide the absolute, definitive answer to the member opposite at this time, but in a couple or three weeks, I would be more than willing to provide whatever information I get.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Chair, this is very interesting. It strikes me that it's similar to a minister reading a briefing note in response to a policy question in Question Period.

Is the minister saying that the Liberals' policy on wolf kills will be guided by the recommendations of a specific resource council, or does this government have a policy that the recommendation from the resource council will have to be considered within? Who is steering the ship? Is this government willing to bend whichever way the specific council wants it to, or does it have a clear policy on this?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, as I had indicated to the member opposite, we're working on the policy. We're conducting consultation processes. The particular application of non-lethal use of wolf management was done in the Alsek area, and I do respectfully look forward to the report that will be forwarded for review from the Alsek RRC. It's one piece of information that will help us define the policy and, with advice from the public through consultation and with advice from the department, we will be deciding which way to go with respect to wolf management.

Again, after I get the report, I will more than willingly pass information over to the member opposite.

Mr. McRobb: I take it that the minister is undertaking to provide me with a copy of the report once it's available. Could he just nod? Okay. That's fine, Mr. Chair. He's nodding in the affirmative.

Just to explore this a bit further, because I'm interested in finding out how this government will handle policy in significant areas like wolf kills, if it will be dependent on a recommendation from a specific resource council, or if it has a policy on behalf of the government as a whole, or the minister's pet policy, or just what is the policy? Furthermore, Mr. Chair, while the minister's on his feet, can he also indicate how they would respond to recommendations, say, from the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: It is through a comprehensive dialogue with Yukoners. I had indicated to the member opposite that we will be in consultation with renewable resource councils, with other environmental interests, listening to the concerns and issues that they present to this government and formulating policy that will accommodate the wishes and needs.

The member opposite is inferring that we are going to be listening to one and then run off and get a policy and listen to someone else and design a policy when, in fact, that isn't the case. It will be through consultation, through listening, and through respecting interests. It's very important that the member opposite tries to understand that, as a new government, we are respecting the existing operations of the department, that we are listening to the experts within the department, that we are listening to the experts from the private sector on how to reasonably manage the natural resources within Yukon.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Chair, there's another reason why I'm concerned about this, and that's because I'm concerned that the minister may not be able to make a decision before going out and talking with everybody and thinking about it. In the meantime, you flip the calendar a few times and it's election time again, and lo and behold, you know the Liberal government never did make a decision. This is a serious matter.

Sometimes there's not a lot of time to respond. I remember the situation back in 1992, with the low survival rate of the calves from the Aishihik caribou herd, and it was an urgent matter. A decision had to be made quickly. Unfortunately, there was not a lot of time. The minister might not have the option to go out on a whirlwind tour of the Yukon and go talk to everybody and hear what they have to say. He might have to make a decision.

Mr. Chair, in making a decision, it's important to have a policy framework in which to operate. But what I'm hearing so far is that the Liberals don't have a policy. They are listening to the department, which currently expresses a preference for non-lethal predator control, but that's under review.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that's the default phrase that not only myself as Renewable Resources opposition critic is hearing but we're all hearing is that it's under review. I think there are a lot of Yukoners who are a little concerned that the government is not taking a position. They have had lots of time to develop policies leading up to the election. I see some members are sputtering in the backbenches there, but maybe they should read their policy documentation, which outlines a lot of these issues.

Certainly, again, Mr. Chair, I don't want to be unreasonable. I understand it has only been two months for the minister in his role, but don't his colleagues have something to say on this? Don't the party insiders have something to say? What is the Liberal position on this? What do they hope to get out of this? Is the door completely open, depending on what they hear? Who are they going to talk to? What happens in the meantime? What happens if it's an urgent matter? What happens if a renewable resource council says one thing, and the Fish and Wildlife Management Board says another, and caucus members say another. What happens then? What is going to guide this minister at the end of the day if a serious issue should arise, where it's suggested that predator control is the number one option? What's going to happen then?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, the member opposite is absolutely right when he says that Yukoners are concerned. They're very concerned and we are, in a very responsible and accountable way, taking into consideration exactly what those concerns are. We don't run off half-cocked and start implementing half-baked policies. We want to listen to what Yukoners have to say, what the renewable resource councils have to say, what the First Nations people have to say, and what the competent experts within our respective departments have to say.

We want to design policy that is meaningful; that is comprehensive. We have exercised a willingness to work with members opposite and there hasn't been a whole lot - I understand they're in opposition and their duty is to criticize the actions of the government, but I think a key aspect of their criticisms is the constructive aspect. They forgot to provide the constructive aspect to their criticisms, and that's fine. We will respectfully listen to their criticisms, because that's what we said we would do. We'll talk to people in the Yukon; that's what we said we would do. We'll design our policies, taking into consideration existing policies and existing programs. We'll evaluate those programs with as much information as we can possibly glean on any subject.

That is what we're going to do, Mr. Chair. We're going to act responsibly, be accountable, listen to the concerns of Yukoners and act on their behalf in a prudent, wise and careful way.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Chair, we hear the rhetoric coming out of the members opposite. We see very little of substance to back it up. You know, we hear the lines, "We'll act in a prudent, fair, responsible way," from this minister. From the acting Premier we hear, "Jobs, jobs, jobs." In reality, the pink slips are in the mail and the flip-flops in the decisions are beginning to mount.

The list of broken promises is getting longer. Two weeks ago I reminded them it was already longer than the budget and throne speeches combined, and since then it's grown a bit. The minister can stand there and poke me in the eye and say we're not offering anything constructive but, at the same time, I would encourage him to listen a little harder and also give us a chance. We have only just started here and, according to the calendar, we have until about August 14 before the 35 days are up, so I think there's lots of opportunity for constructive comment, and certainly our role in opposition is not to only criticize the government. As a matter of fact, that's not the main role in my view. The main role is to hold the government accountable.

Mr. Chair, you're looking puzzled. I'll explain that. Holding the government accountable for promises it made, for things it said, for expectations it has raised, all of those things; holding it accountable on actions that are required to responsibly govern this territory; holding it accountable for things that Yukoners expect from a government. Those are the guiding principles for me. Those are the action items on my agenda. It's not just to throw mud at the government. There'll be lots of time for that when they don't come through on their commitments, and there has been some time for that already, but we know there will be lots more opportunities to do that in the next three and a half years.

Mr. Chair, the minister has had a chance now to review the line items and expenditures in the budget for his department in operation and maintenance and capital, and I'd like to ask him how he feels about those expenditures. Does he agree with those expenditures?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, is the member opposite asking us to go into line-by-line debate?

Mr. McRobb: No, I'm not. I'm asking in a general way, and it cannot be asked on any single line item. That's what this is and, again, I'll give the minister some slack here. This is general debate and I'm asking him if he will support his own budget that's tabled here by his government. I'm not asking at all to go into line-by-line debate. I know the minister is urgently wanting to get through his department and wrap up this Legislature so maybe he can get out of here to enjoy hunting and fishing and whatever in the Kluane area - maybe I'll see him out there - but we have a job to do here first. This is a large budget and it was made larger by the supplementary budget, and we have a responsibility to Yukoners and we're still in general debate. I'm asking him, does he support the expenditures in the budget for his department?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, just a slight correction on my anticipated frivolities after the House adjourns. Au contraire. I have committed myself to becoming totally familiar with the Renewable Resources department so I don't really foresee, in the near future, any vacation time, or time off. I have committed myself to work here, to get the job done. I do believe that the Premier has indicated that, by accepting the responsibility and accountability of this budget, we have indicated to the members opposite what we are willing to do. I feel that we are totally accountable and feel that we should get on with getting this budget done so that we can get the departments back to work with some money and so that there is certainty out there for Renewable Resource professionals to get out there, to be assessing and evaluating those habitat areas in the forest area to protect the interests that the member opposite has positively indicated are areas of concern for him as well. So let's get our forces out there, get them to work by passing and implementing this budget.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Chair, this isn't Question Period either. I was expecting an answer to the question. We're not in line-by-line debate; we're not in Question Period. I would like the minister to indicate whether he supports the expenditures in this budget.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, yes.

Mr. McRobb: Are there any areas the minister would like to see changed to reflect his government priorities?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, does he want to go line by line now?

Mr. McRobb: I thought the minister wasn't anxious to get out of his department, Mr. Chair. We're still in general debate. I'm not asking him a specific question on any line item. These questions pertain to the whole budget, not a specific line item. I'm asking him which areas he would like to see changed to reflect his government's priorities.

If that came up on a specific line item, Mr. Chair, the minister then would be saying that it's too late for that question, that I should have asked it in general debate and we're in line items now.

Well, Mr. Chair, I didn't fall off the turnip truck just yesterday. I have sat in your chair before, and I have heard all these back and forths, and I'm wise to them, and I'd like the minister to respond to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I have already fessed up to the Member for Klondike how novel this is to me, so I would not at all infer that the member opposite fell off the turnip truck. The questions he is asking me are specific to what's contained in the lines. That's my understanding. If he wants to get into line-by-line debate, I'm willing to do that.

Mr. McRobb: Well, we seem to have hit a snag here. I don't think line by line is an adequate response to the question, what areas do you like to see changed. Because when we get into line by line, the discussion is focused completely on that particular line item, not the budget as a whole or the line items collectively. That's the phase we're into right now.

Maybe I could ask it a little differently, and maybe I can get some better results. We know the budget as tabled; it's the same one we tabled back in February. The minister has indicated that he supports all the expenditures in the budget, and that's fine. He has identified his priorities and, as well, some things he'd like to see achieved over the next four years. He has provided some answers on the key policy areas, although it seems that that's a grey area - everything is under review for the time being.

I would like the minister to help me by giving some indication of what's likely to change, in future budgets, from these priorities. Can you help me out in that respect?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I just indicated to the member opposite that I have accepted the budget on this department, and I think he is also aware that we will not be speculating on future budgets. So, I have indicated a commitment to accept this budget, and we, as a party, have agreed to accept the whole of the previous government's budget so that we can get Yukoners back to work and to create some certainty. They want to know that the government is supporting those programs and initiatives that are outlined in the current budget, so we want to get on with it.

Chair: The time being 4:30 p.m., do members wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: It should be a short recess as we've already taken one recess. This will be a five-minute recess.

Recess

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will continue with further general debate on Renewable Resources.

Mr. McRobb: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can the minister indicate what programs in his department are presently under review? He mentioned some awhile back and I'd just like to find out for sure which ones are currently under review. At the same time, it might be efficient for him to indicate when he expects them to be completed and what the next steps are in the process for each.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, the member opposite asked me about the wolf program. I've been informed by the department that, within two weeks, I will get a full, comprehensive briefing, and I will be listening to that. I have already committed to the member opposite to provide the information when I get it.

I don't believe there was anything else that I had indicated but I'm sure in the House - in the discussions - we have indicated that we are in the process of reviewing the YPAS process, as well, and I will repeat that we are looking at the design of our policy. It will be coming into greater and greater effect as I become more and more familiar with all the programs within the department.

I understand that there were a couple of documents submitted in the House here with respect to review of the agricultural policy. The evaluations have been submitted to the House for review, so I know that those are ongoing. Should I be fortunate enough to get to the agricultural ministers conference, I will be lobbying for greater financial assistance from the federal government to Yukon to assist in our agricultural program development here in the territory.

So, it is my wish to do that: to work on behalf of all Yukoners in getting additional funding from the federal government to promote our agricultural industry here in the territory.

Mr. McRobb: So, okay, Mr. Chair, we hear the minister say the programs under review in his department include the wolf kill, YPAS and agriculture policy. That's three programs. Is he saying that there are no others?

I also asked him to give us some idea of the timelines for each. Maybe I wasn't listening, Mr. Chair, but I didn't hear any dates in what the minister had to say. So, could he just confirm whether it's those three only and, for my information, provide me with an idea of what the timelines are?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, the member opposite did not mishear me, because I did not indicate any specific date.

The YPAS review, I believe, was thoroughly reviewed in the local press. At that time, I indicated that the steering committee would be putting forward an options paper in the late summer or early fall, and that we would be reconvening the advisory committee at that time. All key stakeholders involved in the original design of the strategy will be brought together this fall.

The wolf program - I do believe that in the next couple of weeks, I will be presented with an assessment of a program in the Alsek region. I have already committed to provide the member opposite with the information I get at that time.

As for the agricultural policy paper that was submitted for review, I believe it is to be out for review until the fall, as well.

Mr. McRobb: That helped a little bit, but still it didn't give me the information I was looking for. I would like to know what the expected timelines are for these reviews. I'm sure the YPAS might get underway this fall, but when is it expected to be complete?

I'd like to remind the member opposite that this is not an unusual question, and certainly it's quite normal in Committee of the Whole to ask for this type of information and get a clear response. I would also like to remind him that the previous Member for Riverside was quite clear in asking me, as the former commissioner for the energy commission, very similar questions. Not only did I provide clear responses, but we developed timelines in writing on our policy reviews and so on.

Now, I'm not asking him to provide the same level of detail, by any means, but I would like a hint, at least, from him of when we could expect these reviews to wrap up and when he might get around to making a decision on them.

Furthermore, Mr. Chair, he indicated that he had provided some information to a newspaper. Well, this is the Legislature. We're elected to be here, and one of the fundamental things we do in here is to pass information, and we shouldn't be expected to go out and grab the newspapers to find answers to our questions. The minister, in the same amount of time he used to describe the newspaper, could have provided me with the answer. I would like some idea when the timelines for these reviews would take place, including the wrap-up dates.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I thought that the member was understanding that we have been in government on this side of the House for two months and that we are attempting to pass the opposition's budget. We want to give Yukoners some certainty by getting them to work. What I have provided the member opposite is the best information that I have available at this time, but I will provide, in writing, the member opposite more defined timelines at a later date, if that would be satisfactory.

Mr. McRobb: I agree with him. He has been in the government two months. They are passing the opposition's budget; however, these reviews, like the YPAS review and some of these other undertakings, are not items that were in our budget. These are Liberal undertakings and I would expect them to have more information than he has provided in this House. He also mentioned a certainty to work. Well, how does providing me with partial information provide Yukoners with certainty for work? I just don't make the connection. He gave an idea about the timelines for these reviews. I could see that as providing Yukoners with more certainty, but how can Yukoners get more certainty when members in this Legislature aren't certain what's going to happen. The minister can't undertake these reviews and not have an idea of when they're going to wrap up. That's what I'm looking for. I want to be able to hold them accountable and, when the time comes to wrap up these reviews, they produce the results that we are expecting.

The minister should be able to provide us with an idea on that.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, the certainty that I was implying was the passage of this budget. I believe that, in itself, would provide certainty for summer work projects, most definitely, and I have committed to provide the member opposite more detailed information in writing on the scheduling of the projects that I mentioned at a later date. I have committed to do that.

Mr. McRobb: Well, okay, Mr. Chair. In the interest of moving on, I'm prepared to leave that if the minister can provide me with an estimate of when I could expect those timelines at a later date, because a later date could be any time.

Now, in tonight's paper, I can't help but notice an article - Wildlife Act will be reviewed, the minister avows. But I look at the information I'm provided with here and, guess what, Mr. Chair? The Wildlife Act isn't one of the reviews the minister has mentioned. So, once again, do we have to go to the newspapers to find out what's going on?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, the article in the newspaper was provided as a result of the ruling that came down by Judge Barry Stuart in that current case. He provided some explicit comment with respect to the Wildlife Act. I have heard from the department that there are some concerns with respect to the Wildlife Act, and I made a suggestion to the paper that, in light of the comments that the judge had made and under consideration by officials within the department, it would be prudent to have a review or consider a review of the Wildlife Act. I think this is one of those cases, Mr. Chair, that the member opposite alluded to as making a decision on my feet or inferring that I make a quick decision or response. So, I hope the member opposite can recognize that.

The act itself is 20 years old, and there has been a patriation of the Constitution to Canada during that time, which affects the Wildlife Act. There have been innumerable aspects to the territory, such as the umbrella final agreement, that impact on the Wildlife Act, so I believe it's just being responsible to look at the act. The Wildlife Act is an incredibly complex piece of legislation, and it has to be modernized to reflect the current legal principles - First Nation final agreements and management of wildlife resources. Enforcement and sanctions will require substantial staff resources and public consultations, so recognizing that, I think it's just responsible to react responsibly.

Chair: Ms. Tucker, are you rising on a point of order?

Ms. Tucker: Mr Chair, I'd be -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Chair: Order please. Are you rising on a point of order?

Motion to sit beyond normal hour of adjournment

Ms. Tucker:In the interests in proceeding with debate on Renewable Resources, I make motion:

THAT the Committee of the Whole and Assembly be empowered to sit from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill No. 2, entitled First Appropriation Act, 2000-01.

Chair: Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Motion agreed to

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Chair, this is a matter for the House leaders to sort out, but judging from the reaction of my colleagues, it looks like we're bushwhacked completely by another strong-arm measure from this government.

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Point of order

Chair: Mr. Fentie, on a point of order.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Chair, to extend hours in this Legislature, we need unanimous consent, not a vote.

Chair's ruling

Chair: I heard no disagreement, Mr. Fentie. It doesn't require unanimous consent, either, Mr. Fentie. The motion was properly moved, so it went to a vote and it was carried.

Standing Order 2(7): "A motion to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment must be moved by the government House leader or designate at least one-half hour before the normal hour of adjournment. Such motions shall specify the business to be dealt with and may be moved either with the Speaker in the Chair" - I'm in the Chair - "or while the Assembly is in Committee of the Whole." That's the last part.

Mr. McRobb: Well, continuing with general debate on Renewable Resources, Mr. Chair, the minister has undertaken to provide me with some timelines on these various reviews.

I didn't hear when he would provide me with those timelines and whether that would include the Wildlife Act review that is mentioned in tonight's paper. So, when he gets on his feet, maybe he can address that for me.

Can he also provide an indication of what priority he attaches to these reviews? Are they all going to happen simultaneously? Is one before the others? Does the minister have any idea of what priority is attached to these reviews?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, I have, as I indicated, committed a written response to the questions to the member opposite, and I will do that within the next couple of weeks. I do believe that the member opposite is aware that I will be away next week, and if he would allow me the grace, I would like to provide him the information the week after that.

Mr. McRobb: Yes, that's fine, Mr. Chair. I would like to move on now to some more specific matters. The minister has indicated that he's going to reconvene the committee that's reviewing the protected areas strategy.

Can he give me an indication of when that's taking place and what he expects out of this committee, some idea of the timelines. This isn't going back to the previous question, Mr. Chair. I would like to have the minister's expectations of what these committees will be doing in the months ahead.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Chair, again, I'll provide a general guideline of time for the review of the YPAS. The YPAS, I must stress, is a review of the process as it relates to goal 1 areas. I think that's been made very clear.

Generally, the steering committee has been instructed to prepare - and they are now preparing - an options paper that is going to take us into late summer/early fall. In about the middle of October, if I can be a little more specific, the advisory committee will be reconstituted, inviting back all members. As a matter of fact, we'll be, in all probability, expanding that group to include the Yukon communities association. They will then look at the options, as they were the constituent that assimilated the information that was provided through a two-year extensive consultative exercise.

These people have the skills and abilities to do that. They are familiar with the conservation strategy. They are familiar with the present implementation process. So, they will take a look at the options paper as provided to them by the steering committee and will make recommendations back to government based on that.

Mr. McRobb: I would like to thank the minister for that. He has indicated this consultation on the YPAS will be major review. What does that entail? Does it mean going out to each and every community, talking to each and every First Nation plus public meetings and major stakeholder groups? Just what does that involve? While he's on his feet, can he also indicate whether he can provide a copy of the terms of reference?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I think it is very, very important for the member opposite to understand that it's a review of the process. It is a review of what happened as a result of the previous government, where partners within the advisory group decided to pull out of the group.

So, what would this group be charged with? The steering committee will be providing options on the implementation aspects of the strategy as it relates to goal-one areas. They will be presenting that options paper to the advisory committee, who will be comprised of people that were originally involved in the advisory committee.

They will be reviewing the options provided to them. The advisory committee is quite extensive; it has incredible representation and is a cross-section of all peoples of Yukon First Nation's industry people.

As a matter of fact, the mining industry has agreed to come back to the table to review the option papers with the other members of the advisory group to participate fully. So, these people are certainly competent. Their opinions within their respective stakeholder jurisdictions are respected, so they will be charged with the responsibility of reviewing the options paper and making recommendations on the implementation aspects of the YPAS.

Mr. McRobb: There should be no question of the level of competency of the members on this committee, Mr. Chair. I did not raise that as an issue. I don't understand why I'm hearing an argument for it now. I'm well aware of how knowledgeable and experienced these people are and how dedicated they are to seeing a good protected areas strategy, just as they were when the policy was developed. I'd also like to point out that many of them are volunteers and are giving up their time in this very good cause.

The minister has indicated that the strategy will be enshrined in legislation. Can he give an idea of when we might ex