Whitehorse, Yukon

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

INTRODUCTION OF PAGE

Speaker: Before proceeding to the Order Paper, it's my pleasure to introduce to the House a new page, Jason Small. Mr. Small will have made himself known to members through his other career as a reporter for a local newspaper. I would ask all members to welcome Jason to the House at this time.

Applause

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, two of my constituents, Dave and Irene Brekke, have joined us in the gallery today, and I'd like members to join me in welcoming them.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board 1999 annual report.

Speaker:Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Government Services. After researching a list of Yukon government contracts that have been let since the Liberals were elected here, there is one contract that stands out. The Liberals brought in some pretty high-priced friends from Ottawa to work on this government's transition. Can the minister tell the Yukon taxpayers what they received in return for a $5,000 day contract to this Liberal government's well-connected friends from outside the Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: If that question has to do with the transition costs, I will address the question from the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes.

As the member is aware, part of the transition team hired by the Liberal government were members of the Canadian institute for public policy and others. If the member has a specific question on a specific contract, I would invite him to address it further.

Mr. Keenan: Well, I thank the Premier for that camaraderie.

Certainly the Yukon government policy requires that an outside contractor must at least have a Whitehorse business licence to carry out a contract in the city.

Can the minister tell this House if that was done with this contract?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of contracts as part of the transition team. The contracts included local Yukon individuals, as well as individuals from outside of the territory. To which contract is the member referring?

Mr. Keenan: The Premier can provide bafflegab all over the place, Mr. Speaker, but I am talking about the $5,000-a-day contract to outside contractors from outside of the Yukon Territory. I know for a fact that this contractor did not get a Whitehorse business licence. The Liberals spent $60,000 on their friends as soon as they were elected to government. They hired an outside contractor for $5,000 a day to be a part of their Liberal transition team. So, we have thousands of dollars just sailing right out of the old Yukon's economy from the pocketbooks of people here. To top it off, the government broke their own rules. I'd like to ask the Premier: does the Premier believe that this is a wise use of taxpayers' money?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: We, as a newly elected government in April, contracted with a number of individuals to form a transition team. The individuals from outside of the territory were Gordon Ashworth and David Zussman. David Zussman is the president of the Canadian Institute for Public Policy. Pardon me. The correct form is the Public Policy Forum. "The common ground that the Forum's diverse members share is a commitment to promoting excellence in government and in public policy." Mr. Zussman heads that forum; it is a Canadian forum. He and Mr. Ashworth also were involved and led the transition in the territory of Nunavut and a number of other individuals.

The Public Policy Forum is also valued because it's an advocate for the public good and not for individual advantage and I would advise the member that, yes, the government believes that the transition costs were well spent.

Question re: Oil and gas leases, call for nominations

Mr. Fentie:My question is for the Premier in her capacity as Minister of Economic Development.

Now, the Premier and the Liberals have made much of the need for certainty in relation to garnering investment and resource development in this territory. The Premier went on to place a great deal of focus in the oil and gas sector during recent trips to Calgary and, in a ministerial statement in this House, delivered a statement that the call for nominations would be in July. Is that in fact the case? Will the call for nominations for the oil and gas sector in this territory, as far as land sales go, be in July?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I said, in my recent address in Calgary to oil and gas executives and other executives whom I have met with, that we are targeting a midsummer date. That may be as early as early August, because I am very focused on the public consultation that is taking place with First Nation governments and that I had anticipated would take place this week. However, as I am otherwise occupied with the business of the Legislature, we will be pushing that back.

Mr. Fentie: Well, that is the crux of the problem that we have here. It's a mixed message coming out of the Liberal government. We, in this House, were the recipients of a ministerial statement, which is a short, factual statement of government policy, that clearly laid out the fact that a call for nominations for oil and gas leases in this territory would be in July. Now, the Premier has just stated that that's not the case. It may be in August, maybe in fall. This is a problem for the oil and gas sector. They do require certainty. There's huge investment involved in proving up areas that would eventually become an area that they would nominate.

Can the Premier inform this House what the actual date is for the government of the territory to call for nominations, as far as oil and gas leases?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Yukon is working toward a July date. The member opposite's colleague to his right harangued me repeatedly in Question Period and elsewhere regarding the public consultation, and I repeatedly stated that the first order of consultation was respectful government-to-government consultation. That was targeted for July. That's when I anticipate it taking place, and I anticipate us moving forward on this. However, the business of this Legislature has prevented me from travelling to Inuvik, Mayo and Old Crow, which I am fully prepared to do.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Is the member suggesting that we should not proceed, or is the member asking me how diligently we are working on this? I can advise the member we are working very hard with the oil and gas sector with government-to-government respectful relationships, and we are working in other sectors as well, including the mining industry, and other ministers of this government are working on other issues such as forestry and tourism.

Mr. Fentie: Very interesting, Mr. Speaker. First off, the mining industry is non-existent, in the Premier's own words, due to world market conditions. Now, the forest sector is shut down. Under the Liberal watch in two short months, one of our main economic engines has ceased to operate and the feds are pointing the finger squarely at the Liberal government.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the oil and gas industry wants to know when this government plans to call for nominations on land leases. This is not something that can be tentative. This is not guesswork. They need to know. The Premier has a duty to inform this territory and the industry: when will a call for nominations on oil and gas leases take place in the Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the real issue is the economy, and we are working diligently on all sectors of the economy. We have four years of NDP mismanagement that we're working on turning around.

With respect to the oil and gas call for nominations, I have stated that we were working on a midsummer call for nominations, and that is exactly what we're doing. That work involves respectful government-to-government consultations. We have undertaken that. It also involves being very clear and very certain with the industry, which is also exactly what we have done.

Question re: Group home for young offenders at Bear Creek

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. The minister, in response to the petition by Bear Creek residents, which I tabled in the House, attempted to split hairs. Effectively, what he is saying is that the Department of Health and Social Services has a policy to consult neighbours when a group home for young offenders is established in their neighbourhood, but there is no policy for such consultation for setting up a home for young offenders under the Young Offenders Act. This is the type of bureaucratic double-speak that the previous Minister of Health and Social Services was so famous for. Now we have a new government, and they are blaming all the problems on the previous government, so where are the changes. Can I ask the minister when, or if, he is even going to change this policy of the previous NDP government?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the question - it is a very good one. Yes, we are going to change it. We believe it should be very clear; it should be transparent and all Yukoners should know exactly what's affecting their neighbourhood, so we are going to make a change.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, consultation with the neighbourhood about open custody homes for young offenders has been a long-standing issue in this House, and their establishment without consulting the neighbourhood has been spoken against, both by the MLA for Riverdale South and the MLA for Porter Creek South. Let me give you an example from Hansard on April 21, 1998. This is the now Premier speaking. "We talk more to our neighbours about paving the streets than we do about some of these issues, and I don't believe that this is right. No one is saying that these homes shouldn't be there. The issue is about knowledge."

Can I ask the minister what is the reason for this new and latest Liberal flip-flop on an issue of concern to the public?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I'm not too sure what he means by "flip-flop", but I think we've always been of the opinion that we want to do what is right for Yukoners. What we would like to do is to move ahead with making sure that when any type of situation changes in a neighbourhood, we're consulting with neighbours. We are now in the process of drafting some type of guidelines that we'll be sharing with the House once they are complete so that we can make sure that this is what people want.

So, we're not flip-flopping; we're basically moving on to what I think Yukoners want and that is to be very clear about any changes that take place in their neighbourhood.

Mr. Jenkins: So much for changes in their neighbourhood.

Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement from the Department of Health and Social Services. "A community meeting for Dawson City residents interested in open custody caregiver homes". It is going to be held at the Klondike fire hall and the only ones who are invited to it are residents of the Bear Creek subdivision. How interesting - Bear Creek isn't even in the Dawson City limits, Mr. Speaker.

So much for this new Liberal agenda in dealing with the people in the appropriate areas. The residents of Bear Creek are not amused; nor were the residents in Riverdale and Porter Creek.

Now, the Premier, in her previous life in opposition, noted that the N.W.T. had a system of classifications for these homes which makes them public. Will the minister see to it that a similar system is adopted here, for the record, and will he seek the concurrence of the Bear Creek residents before using the home at Bear Creek as an open custody facility?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, thank you again for the question.

I'm not too sure what he means by it not being the Bear Creek residents. I mean, the petition, when it was submitted by the member opposite, was from the Bear Creek residents. So, why he is saying that it's not representing that area, I'm not sure.

Mr. Speaker, I think the point is that we're trying to ensure that meetings are open to everyone. If we address them to a specific area, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's restricted. I mean, all meetings are basically open to Yukoners. Specifically, if it affects a region or an area, we want to make sure those people living in that area know that it's something that's going to affect them so we want them to be there, but it's not restricted at all, Mr. Speaker. We're hoping that all Yukoners will see that.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Who's splitting hairs? I think the member opposite is splitting hairs.

Thank you.

Question re: Youth hostel for City of Whitehorse

Mr. Harding: I have a question for the same minister on the issue of the youth hostel that has been proposed within the City of Whitehorse.

Much work has been done by a local Yukoner on this particular issue, but tonight city council will be facing a very serious decision regarding the future of this facility. It is regarding the future of the building. However, I want to ask the minister about the commitment of the Yukon government to this particular endeavour. So many people have come together to say that they are supportive of this. The previous NDP government had made some commitments to this Yukoner who was working so hard. The minister himself made the commitment to take the issue of funding for this building to Cabinet and fight for it.

I would like to know why the minister's colleagues didn't support continued funding for this youth hostel for the City of Whitehorse?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, my department reviewed the application or the business plan that was presented to Cabinet. We had a number of questions about the business plan, but the big problem was the fact that there are already pre-existing youth hostels within the Whitehorse economy. There is another internationally accredited youth hostel, which is now being developed and will be up and running this year. It would be competing with this hostel that Mr. Martel wants to bring forward.

Mr. Harding: Well, isn't that interesting. This is the third spin line from the new Liberal government.

On June 16, in the Yukon News, the quote attributed to the Health and Social Services minister with regard to the youth hostel was that it makes too much sense not to be done. Then, premier Cunning said that it's chock full of asbestos, and that was the reason why they were not supporting this particular youth hostel.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services, who committed to Mr. Martel to take this to Cabinet for funding, why they keep changing their story and why his colleagues bailed on that commitment?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before to the member opposite, there were problems with the business plan. One of the problems was the removal and the cost of removal of the asbestos in that building. If the member is talking about the article in the paper, perhaps if he'd gone eight more pages into that very same paper he would have seen the article on Bees Knees, which is a local youth hostel that is already running in the Yukon economy, in Whitehorse. Now, we will not subsidize with Yukon tax dollars the development of a hostel that will compete directly with existing privately owned hostels.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, that would be a fair position and an honest position if it was the one they took before the election, but the problem here is that the Liberals said one thing before the election, during the campaign, and now after the election. So, we can understand the merit of the principles espoused by the member opposite, but what the Health and Social Services minister told Yukoners was that it makes too much sense not to be done.

So, there was a commitment made and now a commitment that's not prepared to be honoured by this Liberal government - a classic case of the Liberals saying one thing in opposition and doing something else in government. Now, Mr. Martel's going to need the support of the Yukon government if they wish to see this through.

So, I want to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services, who made the commitment to take this to Cabinet and to fight for it vehemently, if he will stand here today and tell us that he will be behind this project with support and with financial resources to see this youth hostel come into reality?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is quite correct. It does make sense to have a youth hostel in the Yukon economy in Whitehorse, and that's why there is one, and there's another one being developed as we speak. So, I'm not too sure what he's talking about, again, as usual. But, to be absolutely clear, there's a real need in the tourism sector to have that level of accommodation and that's why it's out there, that's why the private sector is doing it, and that's why this government's not going to play around with the Yukon economy, with Yukon tax dollars, and compete against the businesses that are already in existence.

Question re: Haines Junction, Alaska Highway upgrade

Mr. McRobb: The Liberals campaigned on passing our budget as is, but, through examination in this House, we have found examples proving otherwise, such as the Liberal government's reneging on the multi-purpose community bus in Old Crow. Now, Mr. Speaker, they are reneging on the $400,000 appropriated to upgrade the Haines Junction portion of the Alaska Highway through town. Last week, the C&TS minister confused this appropriation for the main intersection in town and furthermore hinted that that project might not proceed this year at all.

Will she now set the record straight and keep the promise to the people of Haines Junction that the $400,000 will go toward upgrading their main street through town in this budget year?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, I met just last Friday with the Mayor of Haines Junction and one of the councillors, and that intersection was on the agenda for the meeting, and I expect we will have a decision on exactly what will be done with that intersection within a short time.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, this project was already in the budget book. There is $400,000 in the budget to upgrade the main street in Haines Junction. It's not the intersection; that was an add-on, that's different. Let's be clear about which project we are discussing here. It's the $400,000 in the budget.

Now the minister wants to go out and re-consult on this. We have a letter from the Village of Haines Junction, which I have referred to numerous times in this House, requesting that street lights be put in, that the main street be upgraded between the main intersection and uptown, on this side of town. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is reneging going on by this government.

Will she clear the air and inform us that the $400,000 will be spent this summer as appropriated in this budget?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As I just said, I had a meeting with the mayor and one of the councillors on Friday, and we will be determining shortly exactly what work will be carried out in this budget year.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is really interesting. We had a budget that appropriated $400,000 to upgrade the main street in Haines Junction between the intersection and this side of town. This was a request from the Village of Haines Junction, and I was proud, as MLA in the area, to have this item put into our budget. It's a sign that we're listening to the communities and the needs of people in our communities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems that the minister has reinterpreted this budget line. I can show her, right here, the capital community distribution: Haines Junction, Alaska Highway improvements and lighting, $400,000 - this document, February 18.

Now, she can go on about how she has met with people and will be meeting with people. They want to know if the $400,000 is going to be spent this summer as promised in our budget and as promised by the Liberals during the campaign, that they would pass our budget.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The member opposite is suggesting that we have reneged on something. There has been no reneging.

Question re: Community development fund, continuation of

Mr. Fentie: Well, I would argue that there has been a great deal of reneging.

My question is for the Premier again in her capacity as Minister of Economic Development.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Point of order

Speaker: Order please. The Member for Whitehorse Centre on a point of order.

Mr. McLarnon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The word "reneging" and "renege promises" in reference, as it is, refers to lying. It actually is banned in Beauchesne's. I should refer to debates. October 25, 1962, page 1936 - it's actually listed in Beauchesne's, and the intention here was to accuse the minister of lying. I put it forward that, since the intention and words in Beauchesne's are there, this is unparliamentary language.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, the practice of this House regarding the language used in this House, what had been determined by previous speakers, and what is used commonly as language in this House is often very different from the practices of Beauchesne's. Therefore, before you rule on this particular item, I would ask you to do some research on the common practice of utilizing the word "reneging". It is certainly not, given the strong connotation of accusing a minister of lying in our House that perhaps it was attributed to Beauchesne and the practice in other Houses.

Certainly, if that is your ruling, given some research, we would not utilize that word in the future. However, we don't intend it to mean the connotation purported to it by the Member for Whitehorse Centre.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: Order please. In the context in which the word was used, I didn't at the time find or feel that it was used in an unparliamentary fashion and I would just rule for us to proceed. I will research it, but I will have to research it after we sit here today. I'll ask the Member for Watson Lake to proceed.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the rude interruption, my question is for the Minister of Economic Development.

In the minister's own words, she stated in this House here today that the economy is the issue. Now we have a situation where, due to world market and no mining under the Liberals - delaying the access to stable timber and supplies - the forestry industry is down. Now we have a moving target for land sales in the oil and gas industry that breeds uncertainty, so we don't know where the oil and gas industry is going.

So, one of the vehicles that we have left for our economy is the community development fund. Can the minister tell this House and Yukoners if the Liberal government intends to continue with the community development fund, which is so desperately needed in the communities as far as job creation and community benefits go.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I want to thank the member for the question with respect to the Yukon economy. With regard to the Yukon economy, first and foremost there were a number of key sectors mentioned by the member opposite, and I would remind all members that in fact the Liberal government, since taking office on May 6, has been working diligently on all of those sectors.

Now the member made specific reference to the community development fund, and the member will recall that in January of this year, I stated publicly before the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce that I felt an evaluation of those funds was in order. Now, until such time as any evaluation work has been done, there is a line item in the budget that we are presently debating, or trying to debate, for the CDF. There has been a board appointed, and one of the issues was to remove the Minister of Economic Development from sole approval of these applications. That board has been appointed, and they have approved a number of the applications that have been received to date.

Mr. Fentie: Well, I'm glad to hear the Liberal government is working hard on the economy, but so far the results are higher unemployment, as the numbers in June prove out. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Economic Development never did have sole decision making as far as expenditures in the community development fund. The communities are very concerned about this. They have witnessed this Liberal government, in two short months, deviate on many, many things: the Old Crow bus, the extended care facility in Watson Lake, and now the intersection work, which is a line item in the budget and is up in the air in Haines Junction. The communities want to know whether they should plan and produce any more applications for community development money or not, and it's desperately needed. That is a vehicle that creates jobs and benefits, especially in the outlying communities.

Will the Premier commit to those people that the community development fund will in fact continue in this territory?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to provide the member with an update with respect to the economy. Perhaps he is not aware of the media release recently issued in Vancouver by one of the mining companies, which comments that one of the reasons for their recent investment in the Yukon is the change in government. If I wanted advice on the economy and turning the economy, I will not be taking it from the members opposite. Yukoners have already passed judgment on their ability to manage the Yukon economy.

With regard to the community development fund, there were a number of applications that were waiting for post-election approval and review by the government and, to the best of my knowledge, all of those pending applications have been reviewed and a decision rendered on them.

Mr. Fentie: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that some media outlet in Vancouver and some mining company is now going to invest in the Yukon because of the change in government. But if the Premier is referring to Howard's Pass, that's been active since the late 1970s. The change in government had very little to do with this announcement by that company

There is a pattern developing here, Mr. Speaker. That pattern is the direct result of the fact that this Liberal government represents Whitehorse and this side of the House represents rural Yukon. There's a pattern developing in the community development fund today that shows that rural Yukon is being ignored and cast by the wayside.

The communities want to know, not about the community development fund monies in this budget, but in future budgets. What is in the future for the communities of this territory? Will they or will they not have access to community development fund money?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, what's in future for all Yukoners is good government on behalf of the Liberal government - that's what's in future for the Yukon.

The member opposite said that he was really pleased about some media release in Vancouver. I, and no member of this government, wrote the media release. We did not - pardon me - we did not write the media release. We had no involvement in the media release.

There's a mining company in Vancouver that's saying one of the reasons that they are again interested in a particular property near the member's own riding is because of the change in government. That's the kind of work that we've been doing - working with all sectors of the economy in an attempt to turn the Yukon economy around after four years of NDP mismanagement. What we are doing is serving all Yukoners.

With regard to the community development fund, the pending applications have been reviewed and the member opposite will find that there is no disparity between any parts of the Yukon. The CDF applications were reviewed fairly and honourably by this government.

Question re: Community development fund, continuation of

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to follow up on this same issue with the Premier.

The Premier is so desperate that she's pointing to news releases in Vancouver to try to claim that she's actually making headway on the economy when in reality, in the forestry sector, we see a 125 real Yukoners out of real work in this territory. We see the unemployment numbers on the way up. Before the Liberals came to government, the unemployment numbers in March and April were much better - before they came to government.

The person the member opposite loves to quote used to say that the NDP had one of the best mines ministers in the country. It doesn't matter. What really matters is what is going on with the real lives of families in this territory who've got pink slips.

So, I'd like to ask the member opposite, because the community development fund is an important vehicle to rural Yukon, how she intends to change it to ensure that rural Yukoners stop getting cut out of the expenditure decisions for this important fund?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the only thing this side is desperate for is decent questions from the members opposite. We're just getting recycled questions.

I have said to the member opposite that the pending applications that were waiting for the election of a new government have been dealt with. They have been either approved or not approved, pending upon the existing criteria for the community development fund.

I have also said to the members opposite and the public that an evaluation of the community development fund would be undertaken by this government in light of the criteria, in light of where we have seen excellent projects and where we have seen situations where municipalities are left with trying to cover the O&M on projects. There are issues. It's not perfect. We said we would evaluate the community development fund, and we will do that.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think rural Yukoners consider these questions important, and it's disappointing that the Premier, without answering them, would dismiss them and argue that they're just recycled questions when we have seen projects up in Mayo, Faro, Watson Lake and Haines Junction cancelled because this government seems to have no idea how to recognize rural Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, I think that Yukon taxpayers, who have seen this government pay their friends $5,000-a-day contracts, Yukoners who are seeing that every day promises like the youth hostel are being fallen away from by the Liberal government, are going to be quite interested in what's going on.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister again: given that they continue to target rural Yukon for cutbacks, how is she, when CDF decisions are made in the future, going to provide confidence to rural Yukon that they are going to accurately be reflected in the equation and the decision-making process, and receive funding?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, all Yukoners want to see good government on the part of the people they elect. What we have done, and what I personally have done as leader of the official opposition and as Premier of the government, is to say that we would evaluate the community development fund. There are a number of questions that occurred to us, as opposition members, and are raised by us as the government.

One of those issues was the administration and who approved the grants. It was a serious question when we were opposite. One of the first steps that we have taken is to have the Minister of Health and Social Services, our representative, who has been assigned the task of dealing directly with members outside of Whitehorse, and others review the community development fund applications.

We are very concerned, overall, about the Yukon economy. The community development fund will be evaluated in its full context, as I committed to doing in January of last year.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Premier on one thing, and that is that all Yukoners want to see good government. We just don't know when it's going to start from the Liberal members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that people in rural Yukon are thrilled that the Minister of Health and Social Services is now in charge of, as they put it in opposition, the ministerial candy store. But we have to point out that the seniors in Watson Lake, who have already had their extended care facility, which was promised to them by the Liberals, pulled out from underneath them by that minister, who obviously has very little concern for rural Yukon, are not going to feel very comfortable about this.

Mr. Speaker, our office is receiving calls daily from rural Yukoners who are upset about their projects being cancelled or their community development fund applications continuously being undermined by the Liberal members opposite from Whitehorse.

I would like to ask the member opposite: in her review of the community development fund, how is she going to ensure that rural Yukoners are represented at the table so that community development fund applications are going to come forward for people outside of Whitehorse?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, in the last review of applications that were pending after the swearing-in, applications have been approved for rural Yukon. There was a huge subscription for the $3 million that was budgeted versus the $6 million that the NDP spent previously, which explains why we are in the fiscal situation we are in.

However, Mr. Speaker, the point of the member's question in how will this government represent all Yukoners. I can assure the member that we will do that and that we are continuing to do that, and we will do that.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: Before proceeding to Orders of the Day, the Chair will provide a ruling on the Question of Privilege raised on July 6, 2000 by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

The Leader of the Official Opposition met the notice requirement found in Standing Order 7(1)(b) by submitting a written notice to the Office of the Speaker at 11:22 a.m. on July 6.

Standing Order 7(4) states that the Speaker must rule on (a) whether there appears, on the face of it, to be a case of breach of privilege, and (b) whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity.

The normal practice of this House has been that, to meet the "earliest opportunity" requirement, a question of privilege must be raised at the time the event occurred or on the next sitting day. In this matter, the event took place on Wednesday, July 5, 2000, and was raised as a question of privilege on the following sitting day. There are many precedents of this House where members have raised questions of privilege on the next sitting day after the event being questioned has taken place. This allows members time to review Hansard to give careful consideration to the matter before deciding whether they will raise it in the House. Also, the House indicated its intent that a matter could be raised on a following sitting day when it adopted Standing Order 7(1)(b) and its requirement for written notice.

The question for the Chair to decide on, then, is whether the leader of the official opposition has raised a question which, on the face of it, is a possible breach of privilege.

The foundation of the question of privilege raised by the leader of the official opposition was that the Member for Whitehorse Centre, who is the Deputy Speaker and the Chair of the Committee of the Whole, had given notice of a motion that was critical of opposition members for their behaviour in this House. The leader of the official opposition stated:

"[I]n bringing forward a partisan motion on members' decorum, the Deputy Speaker is engaging in highly inappropriate behaviour. I submit that his action in tabling a motion of this type violates the trust placed in him as Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committee of the Whole, and thereby breaches the privilege of all members of this Assembly."

In researching the parliamentary authorities, the clearest statement on this matter is found on pages 300 and 301 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

"[T]here has been controversy from time to time over the extent to which the Chair occupants (other than the Speaker) should remain aloof from partisan politics.

In 1931, when a question arose as to the propriety of the Deputy Speaker speaking in debate, it was generally felt that the actions of the Deputy Speaker must be governed by "good taste and judgment". Since then, and in the absence of any rule or guideline governing the political activities of Presiding Officers of the House or limiting their participation in debate or voting, the degree of participation has been an individual decision. In 1993, Deputy Speaker Champagne agreed to act as the co-Chair of her party's leadership convention. A question of privilege was raised in the House by a Member who argued that this decision affected the appearance of impartiality attached to the office of Deputy Speaker and that she was therefore guilty of a contempt of the House. Speaker Fraser ruled that, given the existing practice and the absence of clear direction from the House, Deputy Speakers have used varying degrees of discretion in terms of their party involvement. He clarified that they remain members of their political parties and, unlike the Speaker, may attend caucus meetings, participate in debate and vote. The Speaker ruled that the Deputy Speaker is not "cloaked with the same exigencies that are expected of the Speaker" and that the matter did not constitute a prima facie case of privilege."

Further review of other authorities such as Beauchesne does not reveal a basis for finding that this matter constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.

If a matter such as this is not found to be a question of privilege, the question arises as to what action is available to members. The leader of the official opposition suggested that this matter could be remedied by the Member for Whitehorse Centre withdrawing the motion, that the motion be stricken from the record and that the Premier appoint another member as Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole. The difficulties with those suggestions are that a member cannot withdraw a motion without the unanimous consent of the House, that this House has no history of striking anything from its records and that the House, not the Premier or any other individual, appoints its presiding officers.

However, there are precedents which suggest the approach to be taken when members wish to challenge a presiding officer. That approach is to bring forward a substantive motion which would have the effect of reversing a decision of a presiding officer or, if the concern is sufficient, which expresses a lack of confidence in the presiding officer named in the motion.

In this vein, the Chair would draw the House's attention to a ruling made by Speaker Bruce on March 10, 1999 when a question of privilege was raised that concerned the Chair of the Committee of the Whole of the Twenty-ninth Legislature. In that ruling, Speaker Bruce said:

"On a final point, it should be understood that the Speaker's ruling in matters such as these is whether, on the face of it, there is a question of privilege. If the Speaker decides there is not, on the face of it, a question of privilege, the result is that a motion to deal with the matter will not be given priority of debate.

"However, the House itself may decide, through a substantive motion moved in the normal way, that something is a matter of privilege. That is the House's choice.

"Also, a decision by the Speaker that a matter is not, on the face of it, a question of privilege does not stop members from bringing forward motions of censure against each other if that is their desire. Members themselves must make decisions about whether such motions are necessary to assist in furthering the interests of the House, including its order and decorum."

This concludes the ruling. The House 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

Speaker leaves the Chair

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 take a 15-minute recess.

Recess

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

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

Chair: We will continue with general debate on Department of Justice.

Department of Justice - continued

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, when we left general debate on Justice last Thursday, I was raising the issue of legal aid. The life-long, dyed in red wool Liberal Minister of Justice is not prepared to put any more money into the legal aid budget, and that is probably the biggest issue facing her department. This is in spite of the government's promise to restore and improve funding to legal aid when they were in opposition. We haven't seen any results.

The first supplementary budget that has been tabled by this Liberal government also doesn't include any additional funds for legal aid. When you look at the Department of Justice, their total budget is pretty well committed. Their discretionary funding is very minimal at best, so it is extremely important when an issue arises, that it be addressed and it be addressed head-on. The issue that the minister has on her plate is what to do with legal aid; how to address the shortcomings in the legal aid system.

What we have here is a government that, when it was in opposition, said one thing and, now that it's in government, is doing just the opposite. As the minister will recall, it was she who, just last fall, led the charge against the previous NDP government on the issue of legal aid. Now, if that was the charge that was led, when are we going to do something about it? That opposition, and the Yukon Liberals' repeated demand for immediate help - we now hear that there's a review underway and that there will be no decision until some report has been completed and finally digested within the government. So what we have here, Mr. Chair, is that the minister and her colleagues spend more time pondering promises they made in opposition. We have Yukon families who need financial support when they end up before the court systems, or for child custody or maintenance orders - they have to wait a little longer, sometimes to the detriment of the whole family unit. So, those in the most need receive the least amount of attention from this government, and it was that way under the NDP government, Mr. Chair.

And in opposition, our party and the Liberals hounded the NDP about the shortfalls in the legal aid system - hounded them - but nothing. Still, to this date, we are not seeing this government put their money where their mouth was, and that's the issue. They correctly identified the shortcomings in the legal aid system in the Department of Justice. This Liberal government has had an opportunity in the supplementary budget to put additional funds toward that cause. They have chosen not to. That is in spite of having a $56.2-million surplus as of March 31, 2000.

There is also the issue of circle sentencing, Mr. Chair. Our party has always been crystal clear with respect to this issue. This community justice initiative, circle sentencing, must be an issue that's faced square on. We have been opposed to the use of circle sentencing for sexual or violent crimes. Now, the contrast to the position taken by the Yukon Liberal Party - they have not been as clear as our party has been on where it stands on this issue.

And if you look at the Liberal Party platform document, it states, "encourage the federal government to develop circle sentencing guidelines." Well, Mr. Chair, I'm interested in hearing what position the Liberal government here in the Yukon is taking with respect to circle sentencing guidelines, and I'm also interested in what this government is doing to urge the federal government to do so because most of the success of the Liberals in this last election campaign was based on this wonderful cozy hand-to-hand relationship between the Yukon Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party, but that relationship doesn't appear to be paying benefits to Yukoners currently, Mr. Chair, and I was just wondering why not. I know that Northwestel is looking at reducing telephone rates here in the Yukon, but certainly that shouldn't be an impediment to getting on the phone to the federal Minister of Justice and getting something moving along on this issue.

If the Minister of Justice, Mr. Chair, has some initiatives with the federal Minister of Justice, I'd ask that she'd table all of that information and table the correspondence that she has had with the federal Minister of Justice, because I don't believe that there has been any correspondence on the issue of circle sentencing flowing from the Yukon Minister of Justice to her counterpart in the federal government.

The other issue that the Liberals have been a little bit more opposed to is Bill C-68, the federal Liberal gun control law. But there's waffling. There's waffling by this Liberal government on the outstanding land claims issues and on oil and gas leases, to name just a few. Let's focus on the area that this minister can do something about immediately.

I would like her to give an overview on what she is going to do with respect to circle sentencing and what she is going to do with respect to providing additional funding to the issue of legal aid.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As the member opposite is well aware, the Department of Justice is assisting in an external review of legal aid that was initiated by the previous government. Financial stability is important to the continued operation of legal aid, and until the review is concluded, we can't begin to address the funding.

As the member knows, there is an additional $125,000 in the budget that we are currently debating for the review and for additional funding to legal aid. The review is taking a very small part of that.

Under the previous government, legal aid ran up quite a deficit. There are several high-cost cases, which are expected to cause further extreme financial cost in the coming year. In order to provide financial stability to legal aid, we first must complete the review. I'm sure the member would agree that it wouldn't make sense to make decisions concerning the future of legal aid before the review is completed, and I expect to have that report within a matter of weeks.

As for circle sentencing, in relation to criminal matters, that's primarily a federal responsibility. Sentences are handed down by judges, and we all know that the independence of the judiciary is a long-cherished principle. As well, circle sentencing is community based, and based on the premise that each circle and each sentence needs to be flexible and in line with the individual case being heard.

During the recent consultations on restorative justice, many Yukoners commented on various aspects of the justice system. Dr. Carol LaPrairie, a noted researcher on circle sentencing, has indicated that further research needs to be conducted.

Both the Department of Justice and the courts agree that this research is needed and that clear perimeters for undertaking such research needs to be developed as a first step. The Department of Justice is currently exploring avenues for determining how this research might be best undertaken.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, so could the minister advise the House, with respect to legal aid, what the the timelines are for someone who is falling through the cracks, needs assistance, needs legal aid and can't obtain it because the budget is exhausted? What are the timelines for this minister putting something back into the pot so that these individuals are not left out in the cold, that they are duly represented and that they will have the backing of the legal aid system?

The intention is honourable. We have had review after review after review. We have had various groups come to the minister with the adamant position that legal aid is underfunded. Numerous women's groups have made that pitch to previous ministers on a continual basis, and yet we have to wait for a report that might be there in a couple of weeks and then we have to wait for a decision. Can we expect to see money in the supplementary budget this fall for this issue - yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the legal aid system, as far as I know, has not been reviewed for at least seven or eight years, so the member, when he says that there has been review after review after review, cannot be referring to legal aid.

The review is looking at a number of issues, including the reason for current overexpenditures, and the workload is up but the overexpenditure is not all due to workload.

It is addressing some other inefficiencies, and I expect to have the review within the next few weeks. It shouldn't take that long after that to digest the recommendations and determine how to proceed from there. And I point out again to the member that, in this budget, which we are currently debating, there is extra funding for legal aid.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, why, when it comes to legal aid and supporting an issue, a government can immediately find a considerable sum of money to support the Timmers inquiry? But, for the basic legal aid system, which is sadly needing money, we have to wait for a whole process to flow, we have to wait for a report, and we have to wait for the minister to look at the report and get on with what is a self-evident fact, that legal aid has a shortfall of money in its budget. That's the bottom line. At the end of the day, after we have done all our review - we can look at this legal aid system anyway you want. But at the end of the day, there is a shortfall of money in that budget. What I want the minister to commit to is to include additional funds in the legal aid budget this fall. Will she do that?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As the member well knows, I can't commit to anything regarding legal aid until the review is complete.

Mr. Jenkins: That's simply not the truth, Mr. Chair, and the Minister of Justice knows it.

Unparliamentary language

Chair: Mr. Jenkins, when you are referring to "not the truth", are you referring to the fact that the minister is lying?

Mr. Jenkins: No, the statement is simply not the truth.

Chair: Then I would find that out of order and unparliamentary. Would you withdraw it or find another way to phrase it, please?

Withdrawal of remark

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you. I'll withdraw the remark that the minister said what the minister said. It's inaccurate, incorrect, and it doesn't accurately reflect the truth, if you want to put it that way. So, we can twist it another way, Mr. Chair. But the bottom line is that, at the end of the day, there's simply not enough money in the legal aid budget. Now, we find considerable sums of money instantaneously for the Timmers inquiry. How was that done, Mr. Chair, when we can't find additional money for legal aid?

It's a political commitment that goes right to the Minister of Justice's desk, and she says yes. So, she could make the commitment on the floor of this House today and say, "Yes, we'll put more money into the legal aid budget." That's all I'm looking for: fund it to a level so that it works as it is required to work, because there are a lot of individuals who are falling through the cracks because they can't obtain legal aid, Mr. Chair, and a lot of these individuals are single moms, a lot of them are in the low-income level, and that is not fair. We do not treat members of our society that way, or we shouldn't, but we are.

Now, is the minister going to continue this trend? All she needs to say is, "Yes, we'll put more money in the legal aid budget in this fall supplementary." Can she do that, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: If the supplementary budget in the fall contains money for legal aid, will the Member for Klondike support the budget - yes or no?

Mr. Jenkins: There's a good chance that I would, Mr. Chair, and there's a good chance that I would vote against the budget in its entirety, but that does not mean that I do not support initiatives within that budget. Just like previous NDP budgets, there are initiatives in that budget that I have praised and said I very much support, and I would do the same with respect to the Justice budget if there is a supplementary in it that includes money for additional legal aid. That's where I'm at.

I would support that part of the budget. Now just because one votes against the budget in total in opposition doesn't mean that they don't believe in a lot of the initiatives and a lot of the parts of that budget, Mr. Chair, and that's where I'm coming from. So what I'm looking for is a commitment for additional legal aid money in the fall supplementary. Will the minister do that, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, in many areas the Member for Klondike and I are singing from the same songbook; however, it would be improper to prejudge the external review of legal aid. And I note with interest that the member is a member of the party that cut legal aid by 34 percent. Perhaps he would care to explain why.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, the issue is the budget we are dealing with here. I understand it's an NDP budget that the minister has to defend, but let's look forward to a new realization of what we have to contend with. I have to remind the minister once again that, when the Yukon Party took office, there was a $64-million deficit. Currently, when the Liberals took office, Mr. Chair, there was a $56.2-million surplus. Now, if you add the $64 and $52 together, that's quite a gap. It's over 25 percent of the total budget of the Yukon government currently. That's a significant gap. When the Yukon Party took power, they had to take immediate and drastic steps to get a handle on the finances of this government, and they did so. And they didn't please everyone by doing so, but they did get a handle on it and left office with a very good accumulated surplus, which the last NDP government have passed on to the current Liberal government -$56.2 million.

And I'm sure that, at the end of the day, after this review is completed and this report is submitted to the minister, that the bottom line is going to be that legal aid is under funded. Now, does the minister disagree with that statement - that legal aid is currently under funded?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, one of the conclusions of the report may well be that legal aid is under funded; I won't disagree with that possibility. There are also other issues such as governance of legal aid, the choice of delivery model. There are some coverage issues like family law service in special cases - which are very, very important to Yukoners - financial eligibility, financial reporting, the relationship of the society to the Department of Justice and staffing issues including the role of the executive director, staff compensation and workload. It is a package, and when the report is received, I will deal with it. It would be improper to commit to additional funding until I see the report. Generally, the member and I are singing from the same songbook, but I cannot commit to additional funding until I see the report.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, well, let's take a different tack on this. If the report concludes that there is a shortfall of funding in legal aid, will the minister commit to bringing a supplementary back this fall that contains more money for legal aid?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the member has now moved off into the hypothetical area, and I can't deal with a hypothetical issue.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, well all the members of the Liberal platform in the last election campaign certainly did. There were a lot of promises made and a lot of promises given by candidates. Now, one by one, those promises are being reneged on, but let the record speak for itself. The minister is not recognizing the major shortfall in the Department of Justice, and that is legal aid funding.

Let's move on to another issue, Mr. Chair. What's going to become of the jail in Teslin? All we've heard to date is that all the former employees of the Teslin Community Correctional Centre will be accommodated and that there is another review underway.

I would be very interested in hearing what the minister's ideas are with respect to the future of this facility, what plans are in the making and what decisions have been made to date. Probably, we can move on to the Whitehorse Correctional Centre and the timelines for its replacement. I know that a study is underway, which concluded that that facility is obsolete. Here we are, a territory just over 100 years old, and virtually all our government buildings are falling down around our ears, depending on who you listen to or look to. Our population is shrinking; fewer and fewer people are being incarcerated; our economy is going backwards, and we need a new correctional facility. It's very interesting. Perhaps the minister could tell us what her thoughts are with respect to these two initiatives.

In opposition, the Liberals were extremely vocal about the replacement of the Whitehorse Correctional Centre and the Teslin facility. Just where are we moving, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I have one last point on legal aid, with which the member began his remarks. What is important to the continued operation of legal aid is financial stability. The report will answer some questions in that area.

As for the Teslin Community Correctional Centre, in anticipation of the closure of that centre, there was a redevelopment working group created, with representation from the Teslin Tlingit Council, elders, the staff, the advisory committee, the Village of Teslin and the Department of Justice.

This group was set up to work with the department to determine possible future uses of the facility, including the development of criteria by which to determine the best options. The group had been meeting regularly since January to identify the principles and beliefs that should form the basis of redevelopment. That work is ongoing, Mr. Chair. The member was wondering about the employees; they have been accorded all rights provided to them within the guidelines of the Public Service Act and their collective agreement.

As for the Whitehorse Correctional Centre, the budget contains a million dollars for work on planning the replacement for the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. There have been a number of studies over the past 15 years calling for radical improvement to it and the time has come to replace it, and we made a commitment to Yukoners that we would table the budget. We have done that. We are honouring the planning for the Correctional Centre that is in the budget and I hope during my mandate that construction will begin on a well-planned replacement of the Whitehorse Correctional Centre.

Mr. Jenkins: While we are speaking of correctional facilities, the Whitehorse Correctional Centre has come under a great deal of criticism for its rehabilitation programming. Could the minister advise the House what steps are being taken to address the shortcomings that a number of members of our legal system - well, I guess the judges - have identified as being quite a problem. What is being contemplated in this area?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, there is a lot more to the Whitehorse Correctional Centre than a building. We are also concerned about the programming needs of the offenders who will be housed there. We're concerned about their health and mental-health needs as well, and all of those things impact on the facility layout and structure, so we're looking at the whole picture.

There is some existing programming, and we are aware of some inadequacies and are working to change that, along with the planning for the new facility.

Mr. Jenkins: I just have a couple more issues that I'd like some kind of direction from the minister on.

There are a number of issues surrounding the law as it stands in our First Nations communities and the law as currently written by government. There appears to be some conflict with respect to the First Nations laws and the laws of Canada, and I'm referring to First Nation adoptions. Is there anyone within the department who has had a look at this area to see if we could expedite issues surrounding First Nation adoptions when they take a course of action through the First Nations, vis-à-vis through the government legal system, and how are they dovetailing?

It has been brought to my attention by two of my constituents who have had major, major concerns with this area. It's a difficult one to address, and there doesn't seem to be anyone there to coordinate or expedite these initiatives on the government side. So, I'd just like the minister to explain where the government is heading in this area and how people can rightfully achieve a successful adoption, employing one or the other method, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, normally, adoption is handled by the Department of Health and Social Services, but if there are some specific issues that the member's constituents wish to raise with my department, we can certainly see what information we can make available to them. I would be pleased to expedite that.

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that this one individual has spent a considerable amount of time with the previous Minister of Justice to no avail. I know that it is just an ongoing issue with two constituents and yes, it does cross boundaries, but basically it rests with Justice as to how the law is written.

I thank the minister for her response and refer the individual to her directly to see if we can work something out.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-68 - that famous federal Liberal gun control law that we all hate. I am not asking the minister to speculate. I am asking the minister to tell us what her government is going to do in the Yukon with respect to this law; whether she is going to launch another court challenge of it, whether she is going to go down and ask the federal Minister of Justice in Ottawa to give some exemption to those of us who reside north of 60, as I suggested earlier in this House, or whether we are just going to bite the bullet and move on. The previous Liberal Senator, Paul Lucier, spoke very eloquently in the Senate on this issue and did a marvellous job, but at the end of the day it passed. It is law. It is being implemented.

It is a detriment to the way of life of many Yukoners - many Yukoners in the First Nation community. In fact, other First Nations in the north have taken it upon themselves to commence a court challenge.

I was wondering what the position of this Liberal government is with respect to such a court challenge? Would they be joining it? Should it be initiated by any of the First Nations here in the Yukon? Will they be adding their voice to it or are we going to play the usual Liberal line and sit on the fence, not making a decision one way or the other? Which way will this government be leaning?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Before taking any action to become an intervenor in the Nunavut/Tunavik court challenge or any other court challenge launched by a First Nations group on behalf of First Nations, the Yukon government would carefully consider all aspects of the matter and obtain legal advice. We would consult with First Nations people to ensure that this action is in the best interests of all Yukon people.

The process has gone pretty well as far as it can go legally. We intend to continue to lobby the federal government in opposition to their gun control legislation and would welcome the assistance of all parties, as I have said before. I think it is a bad law. It is designed to deal with a problem in the big cities and has no relevance in rural areas of the country. That said, while we may not agree with a law and its impact on law-abiding citizens, it is the duty of the Minister of Justice and the government, as well as the people of the Yukon, to defer to the courts and to Parliament.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Chair, Parliament has spoken. The only option is to defer to the courts. I thank the minister for her response that they would obtain a legal opinion.

Has the government not currently obtained a legal opinion on this issue? I see it as something that I would want to be asking a legal opinion for immediately, as to where we could proceed. What is the next step? What are we going to do? Once again, it would appear that the Liberals are sitting on the fence.

If the Liberal government has obtained a legal opinion, can the minister table it? If they haven't, why hasn't she?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, it is, as the Member for Klondike knows, a complicated issue. We are seeking legal advice, but it's not something that can be rendered with a snap of the fingers. It will take some time.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, if we're looking at the constitutionality of this law, I don't believe that is worthwhile pursuing. It is a dead issue. It would appear that the best avenue, Mr. Chair, is to align ourselves with a First Nations' initiative - perhaps another one stemming from the Yukon.

The minister can lead, follow or get out of the way. I would hope that, given the impact of Bill C-68 on Yukoners, she would lead, meet with the First Nation groups and see if there is any interest in pursuing this course of action. Will she undertake to do that?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I have already said that this is a complicated issue. Any action we would take would have to be in the best interests of all Yukoners. A court challenge that would represent only First Nations people may not be in the best interests of all Yukoners. That is why we're considering all aspects of this and are in the process of obtaining legal advice.

Mr. Jenkins: The last thing we want to set up is a double standard; I agree with the minister. But if the standard is relaxed for First Nations, which I suspect it will ultimately be, we could make a very good case if we align ourselves with their initiative. And, just reading between the lines on the situation coming out of the eastern north, there's probably going to be a measure of success to their initiative, and, as I said earlier, if the minister is not consulting with the Yukon First Nations on this initiative, why is she not doing so? I see it as a very important one, one that she could probably get a lot of brownie points for if she were successful. Now, why not consult with the Yukon First Nations on this issue and see if there's a game plan that we can put together?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I have already said that before taking any action to become an intervener in the Nunavut/Tunavik court challenge or any other, we would consult with First Nation people. Any action that we would take must be representative of all Yukon people - I say that again.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, sometimes that's not the case. Sometimes we represent certain sections and deal with certain sections of society, like in the case of legal aid. That's only applicable to certain members of our society. And there are a tremendous amount of examples, Mr. Chair, where we only deal with certain members or certain groups in our society. And the rules, while they may be in place for everyone - it would appear that the best initiative to contest Bill C-68 is one arising with the backing of the Yukon First Nations.

Like I said earlier, Mr. Chair, she could lead by example or sit back on the fence - the usual Liberal position - and do nothing until it's the end of the day and say, "Well, we consulted. We discussed and we can't do anything because it's now law." So, I just urge the minister to be proactive rather than reactive.

Will she do that, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the situation I'm trying to avoid, which the member opposite seems to favour, would see First Nations people exempt from Bill C-68 and all other Canadians, non-aboriginal Yukoners included, required to abide by it. That is not a situation I would like to see.

Mr. Jenkins: And thus, we extend it to what I suggest. We have C-68 exempted for north of 60, all across the north. It's a very valid, reasonable suggestion. This gun law was aimed at the principal cities in Canada. We both agree, Mr. Chair; that's not an issue. But the way to get a toe in the door and the way to get the federal government to start to listen to reasoning is to use a part of our population here - a very prominent part of our population - who, in large number, use firearms as a tool.

Now, we can't make a blanket policy for everyone, so I'm just urging the minister to sit down with the First Nations and be proactive rather than reactive - move ahead on a game plan that we can probably eventually all buy into.

If it initially is just specific to First Nations, then we go back to the courts again and make a case that it's discriminatory; it discriminates against the rest of us in the north. I'm sure we could win that one, but unless somebody takes a stand, we're just going to be saddled with C-68, which we currently are, Mr. Chair.

So, I'm urging the minister to be proactive, not reactive. Can she do that, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: We are working on it.

Chair: Is there any further general debate on the Department of Justice?

We will proceed line by line.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair: Is there any general debate on Management Services?

Unanimous consent

Ms. Tucker: The House leaders are in agreement to pass the department in bulk.

Chair: Do we have unanimous consent from the House to pass the entire Department of Justice and deem that all clauses are read and carried?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: There seems to be unanimous consent.

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures for the Department of Justice in the amount of $31,672,000 agreed to

Chair: Do we have the same agreement for the capital?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: It has to be unanimous consent. Does the House deem that the entire capital budget be cleared and carried?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: Unanimous consent has been given.

Capital Expenditures in the amount of $1,233,000 agreed to

Chair: Does the entire budget for Department of Justice clear and carry? There needs to be unanimous consent.

All Hon. Member: Agreed.

Chair: Unanimous consent has been given.

Department of Justice agreed to

Chair: Is there any general debate on Yukon Development Corporation?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the members will be familiar with the fact that the Yukon Development Corporation is voting a dollar. This underlines the self-financing nature of the Yukon Development Corporation and the fact that a board of directors has been assigned responsibility and accountability for directing the management of the corporation within the mandate prescribed by the government under the Yukon Development Corporation Act. The arm's-length relationship with the corporation means that it is the board and the management of the corporation that are best able to answer the operational questions about the corporation and its subsidiary, Yukon Energy.

I would like to advise members opposite that my government intends to continue the practice of bringing the chair and the president into the Legislature during the fall session to answer members' questions directly. I would like to further advise members that I have asked House leaders to negotiate a date for the appearance of these individuals as early as possible, so that it can be accommodated into everyone's schedule and line of questioning.

If members have specific questions about the corporation, I will respond as best I can. Specific operational questions I will note and have the corporation respond directly, but I'm prepared to answer general questions.

Mr. Harding: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two issues - the port purchase. One of the options that was not ruled out at the time of consideration of the budget of the Yukon Development Corporation was to expand the definition of "infrastructure" and consider the possibility, at least - and it had never been fully determined - that there may be some validity in changing a cabinet OIC to encourage the expansion of the definition Yukon Development Corporation presently uses for using Yukon Development Corporation retained earnings for some substantive infrastructure issues, such as the port in Haines. We made no decision on this, but I would like the Premier to state whether or not they, themselves, are indeed considering it. The issue has a number of pros and cons. We would like to know - and so would other people, like the Utilities Consumers Group and others - whether or not they are considering this option?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The member has quite correctly pointed out that in order for the Yukon Development Corporation to consider such a development purchase would require a change in the order-in-council. The issue of the port purchase is a matter that is being examined by the government and, as I indicated previously in Question Period, we are anticipating a conclusion to this issue this fall.

The Yukon Development Corporation Board, which I have met briefly with since the election, have a number of outstanding questions on this suggestion by the government and have made no specific recommendation to me regarding their views on it. Our own views are that we are looking at a number of options, including seeking other partnerships outside of the Development Corporation.

So, as the member stated, there had been no decision made by the previous government on that and this government has not reached a final conclusion on this.

Mr. Harding: Just so I'm clear, it is still a live option to consider utilizing some YDC funds for an expanded definition beyond simply energy infrastructure - correct?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: It is not the preferred option. We are looking for other options. Any suggestion would be a change to the order-in-council of the Development Corporation and that's not something we are contemplating at this time.

Mr. Harding: Well, that's a conflicting message. Okay. It may not be a preferred option. Half the time in government there's no such thing as "a preferred option"; they're all bad. But you have to pick one.

So, is it a live option or is it not a live option? On one hand, the Premier said it was and on the other hand she said that there are no plans to change the OIC, which would, indeed, have to happen.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Chair, the best way I can describe this issue for the member opposite without pre-judging any conclusions is that we are reviewing the issue of the purchase of the ports. We are very interested in this infrastructure. We're very interested in financing options for this, and we are actively seeking options other than the Yukon Development Corporation; however, I'm not slamming the door on that. It's not our preferred route for financing this, if we choose to do that.

I have not had a specific recommendation from the Development Corporation itself on this particular use of the dividends in the reserve, so I'm hesitant to prejudge that by saying, "Absolutely not; it's not something we're contemplating." The Development Corporation Board of Directors may came back and say, "Yes, we'd like to."

Mr. Harding: How about if I phrase it this way then? This will be probably easier for a yes-or-no answer.

Will she rule out the possibility, even though it's not a preferred option, that they may utilize YDC funds at some point for other than energy infrastructure?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, I would answer the member opposite that, under the current order-in-council, yes, I would rule it out unless requested otherwise by the Development Corporation Board and the general public.

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask the Premier, if I may, just to describe a little bit to me about support for alternative energy sources.

It says in the platform, "...such as solar and wind generation." I was just wondering if there were any other ideas that the Liberals might have?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Chair, the Development Corporation has a number of programs that they operate in terms of alternative energy sources: green power and wind turbine. Wind power previously has been a major focus of Liberal members' efforts. The member, of course, will recall the efforts of my colleague, the former Member for Riverside on this particular alternative energy source.

Wind energy has been a focus. The members opposite questions asked about in-stream turbines during the briefing session, but the focus has been on the existing energy alternatives pursued by Yukon Development Corporation, and we have not changed that direction.

Mr. Keenan: Okay, I understand that the board from YDC does have a lot to say here. I was just probing with the Premier if there was anything else that was out there, because certainly, in the land claims, there are identified sites, et cetera. And I'm wondering if there would be any energy put toward the development of those identified sites, anything like as such?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: No, the initiatives and preliminary discussions I have had with respect to First Nations and energy issues have been seeking partnerships in other initiatives, seeking interest in partnerships in terms of development, not necessarily Energy Corporation - it has been touched on in discussions but there has been nothing further.

Mr. Keenan: So would the Premier be open to suggestions - from communities or First Nation corporations, municipal corporations - to maybe further those identified sites within the communities?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, bearing in mind that we are working with an arm's-length corporation here, we are very interested, as a government, in not only espousing the public philosophy but living the public philosophy of working in strong government-to-government relationships. That would, of course, include the First Nation governments and municipal governments.

Mr. Keenan: I'll take that as a yes. I heard "respectful working relationships" but I'll take it that the government is open for those types of ideas. Great. That's good.

A real toughie here: the secretary to the Yukon Utilities Board is the last person who is now working upstairs, I understand. Is there going to be resources for them?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, this particular position is housed in the Department of Justice, and I would anticipate certainly that that position would be filled.

Mr. Keenan: Has the expression of interest for the small-scale green power projects been tendered, and has there been a response back from that tender as yet?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, that is a specific operational question that I will be delighted to ask the Yukon Energy Corporation to respond to directly.

Mr. Keenan: That would be fine with me.

If the Premier doesn't have things in her hands, I would very much appreciate it if she would get back to me - also with regard to the status of the energy solutions centre proposal.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I will have the response prepared for the member opposite with respect to that issue.

Mr. Keenan: Maybe these fall under a line, but I would like the status of the Mayo-Dawson transmission line and the Carmacks-Mayo transmission line.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, just for the member's information, the member would want to be aware that I had indicated in my opening remarks that the chair and the president will again be recalled in the Legislature to answer specific operational questions this fall. However, the questions that the member opposite has asked will be responded to shortly.

With regard to the Mayo-Dawson line, the Yukon Energy Corporation expects to receive a system design report from B.C. Hydro shortly. It goes to the YEC and YDC boards for consideration. They review the matter and then submit the project to the minister. That is with respect to the Mayo-Dawson line.

With respect to any Carmacks extension, I have not been advised of the status of a report on that. The focus for my information has been the Mayo-Dawson line. As I said to the member opposite, the report and engineering work is expected shortly.

Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Chair, that would suffice. I look forward to getting the information, so that I might be able to answer and ask some intelligent questions this fall, so I'd appreciate if that happens.

I'd like to also know if the Energy Corporation, as does Yukon Electrical, plan to do a general rate application this year?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: No. The Yukon Energy Corporation has committed that they will not be filing a GRA this year. I do not speak for the Yukon Electrical Company Ltd.

Mr. Keenan: On the governance's protocol, I'd like to know if the governance's protocol will be - if I could get an update on the progress and how the management will be restructured and, I guess, most importantly if it will be continued?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I can advise the member opposite that I have had a meeting with the boards and discussed this matter with them. They are still continuing their efforts with respect to a new governance structure. There has been no final decision reached as of yet. There's an additional board discussion scheduled for later this month.

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, I'd ask your indulgence, please. The headphones are giving me a very hard time, but I'm going to get them fixed sooner than later. So, thank you, if I have difficulty sometimes hearing - no, I don't thank you for the difficulty of sometimes hearing. I thank you for your indulgence, if you would.

So, what I heard regarding the governance protocol is that the Premier is meeting with the board later on, and it looks like it would be continued. Is what I heard correct?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I don't want to leave the member opposite with the impression that I'm going to be making some decision or change with respect to working with the governance structure. What's happening is that the Development Corporation and Energy Corporation have been working, as the member knows, on a new governance structure. That work has continued. The election has happened. I have met briefly with the board to discuss it. They have continued their work. We are meeting again to discuss this toward the end of July to see what, of course, would best meet the future needs of Yukoners.

Mr. Keenan: Thanks. I find that very helpful and I would appreciate an update before the first Question Period of the next session as to the outcome of that meeting, and the sooner the better. Thank you very much, I appreciate that from the Premier.

I asked a question on the Boswell Crescent power surge earlier this year and I got an answer of how great the Member for Riverdale South - what a wonderful job she does. Now that we have time to explore a little bit - could the member please tell me just what is happening with the Boswell Crescent power surge?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, first of all, this is again more of an operational question. I can advise the member of what we have done as a government.

As the member knows, the Member for Riverdale South has raised this issue as an opposition member and as a government member. The Yukon Energy Corporation has offered to make available to Boswell Crescent residents information that they are seeking and I have asked that I, as minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation, make myself available to meet with them, as well as officials from Yukon Energy Corporation and the Member for Riverdale South to explore their use of that information and to ensure that however Yukon Energy Corporation might be of assistance to them, that we have done so.

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Chair, certainly elections due tend to make people talk maybe differently than they normally talk during their other three and three-quarter years' of tenure. On the doorstep, it was, "We will be doing something", and now it's back to the Yukon Development Corporation.

One thing I won't do in here is I will not ask on behalf of other people if I don't have permission to ask them. So, right now I am telling you that I am on a bit of sensitive ground, but I did have one person come and tell me, "Well, that's great that they are doing that but how do we do it? We don't have the foggiest idea of how we would even enter into these books to look at it." They were quite confused and stymied by the whole process at the time.

I am wondering if the minister is going to make it user-friendly and do everything, because certainly if it wasn't categorically stated, it was certainly alluded to, that the Liberal government would stand by them through this and look at it, so that it did not happen again - with the reliability concerns again. Now, the Premier is saying that it is the Yukon Development Corporation. I am asking at this point in time if the Premier will be able to assist any of the people from Boswell. If they were supposed to be there on July 30 and they didn't get there until August 5, I wouldn't think that that is good assisting.

This is what they feel now. When I asked this question in Question Period previously and got back to the people, they were a bit confused by it also. So now, they are frightened. And if they're not frightened, they're at least confused and they need some assistance. I'm asking: will the Premier, at this point in time, provide that type of assistance to the people to help walk them through the YDC so that they might be able to take advantage of those programs to bring back dollars to their pockets?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, first and foremost, nothing has changed in the position of the Liberal members in opposition or the Liberal government. Nothing has changed, other than the fact that we are no longer in opposition and we are in government. That has changed.

The Boswell residents and the issue, of course - and, as the member knows, this particular novel began on a dark and stormy night in October of last year, Halloween of last year. And it was shortly after that when the Member for Riverdale South began her efforts lobbying on behalf of the Boswell residents.

Now, the issue with respect to my responsibilities in the Yukon Development Corporation, Yukon Energy Corporation - the Yukon Energy Corporation has seen, since before the election, and continues to see this as more of a Yukon Electrical Company Ltd. issue, as opposed to a Yukon Energy Corporation issue. Now, the Yukon Energy Corporation, in ensuring that it fulfilled its responsibilities, has offered to make information available to Boswell residents. What the member has alluded to is that this information can be very difficult to access. I can advise the member that we, the Yukon Energy Corporation, are assisting the Boswell residents in accessing this information. There has been staff who have been available to, for lack of a better word, walk them through the information so that it's very clear.

So, Mr. Chair, for the member opposite's information, we have acted - and we will continue to act - to ensure that where the Government of the Yukon, through the Yukon Energy Corporation, has responsibility, we will behave in a manner that is ever mindful of the fact that we are public servants.

Mr. Keenan: Well, thank you very much for that, Mr. Chair. Yes, I'd take exception to that. Something has changed. Certainly, the Member for Riverdale South had all the answers during the election campaign, and during the election campaign was spouting to people that if a Liberal government were elected, they would seek compensation for the affected residents. So, certainly there has been a change at this point in time and I take exception to the Premier saying there hasn't, because now we're hiding behind the Utilities Board.

Now what I had asked - not to stay with that - is that to make it user-friendly. People would not have to go into the files and look for the smoking gun in that case. They would not have to do that. What I have now is a commitment from the Premier that, for any affected residences, it would be user-friendly and the Premier, with her powers, would certainly be able to accommodate those people so that they will feel that they have been looked after. Does that about sum it up?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: With some minors disagreements about words, yes.

Mr. Keenan: During election times I guess people say "categorically" and then, upon being elected, it's, "We allude to things." The nature of the game, I guess. I'd like to know then what's happening in terms of the reliability concerns that have been taking place. What has been taking place since that dark and stormy night?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Again, there are two. I would remind the member that there is Yukon Energy Corporation and Yukon Electrical Company Ltd.. While I have responsibility for one of those in terms of reporting to this House, I can advise that the work continues; there is recognition - certainly on behalf of the corporation that I speak for. There is recognition of the need for improvement and they're working toward that end. I am certain that, were the member to address the question to Yukon Electrical Company Ltd., he would find a similar answer. I understand that Yukon Electrical Company Ltd., as part of their capital plan, is to install new metres at the power interchange points to provide better data on power quality. So, there are efforts ongoing, I know that people take the issue of the quality of power supply to Yukoners very seriously, and my understanding is that they're working on it.

Mr. Keenan: I'd just ask the Premier if the Premier would be able to put that into written form for me, as to what's happening from the respective agencies on the reliability, just so I could have it at my fingertips. I'd appreciate that.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I will certainly have the Yukon Energy Corporation's response for the member forthwith, and I will write, on the member's behalf, and ask YECL to provide the same information.

Mr. Keenan: I certainly appreciate that. I have no further questions.

Mr. Jenkins: I have a number of issues that I'd like to explore with the Premier, Mr. Chair.

Let's look at the Mayo-Dawson interconnect and the extension from Carmacks to Mayo. If generally accepted utility practices were employed, costs were allocated, the capital cost was added into the rate-making base and the interest was accrued in an appropriate manner to this capital expenditure, this project wouldn't fly. It would require a capital investment from somewhere in order to make it work. It would also be subject to the Public Utilities Board, but because of some interference somewhere, I'm understanding that this project won't be coming under the scrutiny of the Public Utilities Board. The reason given is that it doesn't impact on the rate-making base, and it doesn't impact on the rate-making base because the capital is invested at a very low rate of return or no rate of return and the utility is not looking for a rate of return on its assets.

Now, if you use that scenario for any project in the utility business, you can make any project fly, but why are we specifically using this example, or this methodology, on this project, and why aren't we using it in other projects undertaken? To my understanding, this is the first time that this way will be used for a major capital undertaking - that it won't be under the scrutiny of the Public Utilities Board because it doesn't impact on the electrical rates charged, and it doesn't do so because the capital is fronted at zero or a very low interest rate to make it work.

Why are we using that method at this juncture for this project? Why haven't we used it before? Why, all of a sudden, now?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I was not involved in the decision to which the member makes reference. I cannot give him the specific reasons why this methodology was chosen. I will certainly look into his point. He makes an interesting case. I will look into it and I will respond in writing to that.

I just want to remind the member opposite, however, that we are still receiving reports on this project stage and that my notes also indicate that the Development Corporation would be publicly presenting the cost benefits. So while that's not a Utilities Board review, as the member has outlined, certainly I have been advised that there is an opportunity for public discussion.

So, I will respond in detail to the member as to why a decision was taken not to have a Utilities Board review, and I will also respond to the member and outline what the public consultation process is on this particular project.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, the position I take, Mr. Chair, is that it should fall under the scrutiny of the Public Utilities Board, and if the minister cares to check with her colleague, the Minister of Justice, she'll find in the Justice budget an increase in funding for the Public Utilities Board that wasn't explained by way of a GRA because it's not anticipated that there'll be a general rate application by either Yukon Energy or Yukon Electrical Company Ltd. this year, this budget cycle. So, that begs the question: why was there an increase put in - and it was a sizable increase, Mr. Chair - the Justice department for Public Utilities Board operations and expenses?

I would submit, Mr. Chair, that an initiative such as this - the Mayo-Dawson interconnect, or whether it goes from Mayo to Carmacks initially, or however it proceeds - should all be under the scrutiny of the Public Utilities Board, because one way, the taxpayers are going to be paying the bill, and the other way, the ratepayers are going to be paying the bill.

All you have to do is adjust your loan charged to the utility company and you lower the interest rate or make it zero interest for 15 or 20 years, because we are talking about an expenditure in the order of magnitude of some $20 million. And $20 million will have an impact on the rate-making base. The interest alone on $20 million a year equals the cost of the diesel consumption currently, at the current rates in Dawson, which this is intended to serve. It doesn't displace all of the diesel either, because there is only five megawatts of installed capacity in Mayo. By the time you build your interconnect, subtract one megawatt for line loss from Mayo to Dawson and service Mayo and Elsa on that grid, at the end of the day you can't meet the peak, summer or winter, in Dawson.

When you start putting this kind of money up for a major infrastructure initiative, it should come under the purview of the Yukon Public Utilities Board. That is what I am urging the minister to do - be up front with this initiative - with this project - and show the people how it is funded, because it is either the ratepayers or the taxpayers that are going to pay for it.

Will the minister undertake to put this project through the scrutiny of the Yukon Public Utilities Board?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I have already committed to the member opposite that I would examine why the Utilities Board was not chosen, if in fact it has been entirely ruled out. I also indicated to the member opposite that we would - and certainly it is anticipated that the Yukon Development Corporation would be entirely upfront, to use the members words, about this particular project.

There has been a duly-appointed Yukon Development Corporation Board, which is getting the reports on this project. They are expected to receive them in the very near future. It has to go to the board for consideration.

They have to be comfortable with it, and, of course, the Development Corporation's role is to make sure that ratepayers are protected. It's a price increase as a result of the Lion's construction. The member knows that information quite clearly. I will not commit the Utilities Board to a review of this project without finding out, first of all, about the member's representations and, secondly, determining why that decision was made. I said I would examine it, and I would provide the member opposite with a response; I'll do that.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, the reason it won't be submitted to the Utilities Board and what we were advised by the Yukon Energy Corporation was that this expenditure would not impact on the electrical rates, so I submit, Mr. Chair, that while they won't impact on the electrical rates, they'll impact on the taxpayers. So, one way or the other, we are going to pay for it.

The other initiative that comes under the purview of the current government is where we're heading for our electrical rate subsidy program. We have an initial block of energy that's provided across the Yukon from Old Crow to Watson Lake to Whitehorse for residential consumers, and there were some changes made under the NDP government where, after you went over 1,000 kilowatts a month, up to 1,500, that amount was clawed back, and in order to keep this program alive, the previous NDP government dumped $10 million into the program.

Now, just how long before this $10 million will be depleted? And that assumes zero growth because we are on a downturn in the economy, and assumes zero growth in electrical rates. When is it going to be depleted? This is a political decision. Are we going to go back to a more fair and equitable rate subsidy, or rate form scheme here in Yukon, or are we going to claw away on the current path? What's the Liberal position on this initiative?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the program the member refers to is the rate stabilization fund. That fund is proceeding according to the schedules that were in place under the previous government. We do not anticipate any changes to the rate stabilization fund. As to the exact date for the depletion of the fund, I will have the corporation respond directly to the member opposite.

Mr. Jenkins: I did a few little calculations, Mr. Chair, with current consumption of this rate relief fund and, given the state of our economy, it's going to be depleted faster than anticipated. So, D-Day is probably going to be upon us very, very quickly and it looks like it might fall within the mandate of this Liberal government.

I was appalled to hear that the Liberal government is not anticipating any changes or conducting any review on this rate subsidy or stabilization program, so I was curious as to what the Premier is going to do. It's an initiative that's going to affect all of us very, very quickly. She has said she's not anticipating any change and she has indicated that she will get back to us as to when this sum of money is going to be depleted.

The first question one would ask if one was a prudent business manager would be how much money we have in the bank to support and keep this fund flowing. That doesn't seem to be the question that has been asked. They just maintain the status quo. I want to know why this hasn't been given the attention it deserves.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I said to the member opposite that there is a current schedule in place for the rate stabilization fund. The fund has not changed since the election, the schedule for payment has not changed, and the current fund, as it stands now under that schedule, is not going to change.

In order to have a precise and prudent response for the member opposite on the question of when precisely the fund will be depleted, I have indicated that I will have the corporation respond with an exact date.

In terms of the future for the electrical ratepayers in the Yukon, that is of tremendous concern to us. We are examining and working with the Development Corporation and the Energy Corporation on these issues, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Jenkins: I think that, at the end of the day, Mr. Chair, if we just listen to the Premier, the rates will have to go up substantially to keep this body afloat, given the current precarious financial position of the energy or the utility company and no major consumers.

Mr. Chair, one of the other initiatives that has been taken by the Yukon Energy Corporation and Yukon Development Corporation has been the issue of power generation utilizing wind. Now, at the end of the day, when is a determination going to be made as to whether this project is viable or not? What kind of costs are we anticipating for a kilowatt of electricity? It has been my experience that anywhere the temperature and the dew point come together under freezing conditions, the rime icing on the blades costs more energy to provide for the de-icing to keep them working than they actually realize in net benefits by way of power generation.

That has been the case all across the north. Even back in the days of the Northern Canada Power Commission, they had a wind turbine in the Northwest Territories that cost more to start, get up to speed and keep de-iced than it would generate in net benefits in electricity, and that hasn't really changed. There have been some improvements made on de-icing equipment, but at the end of the day, a kilowatt of electricity produced in the north utilizing wind generation is more expensive than the other methods - such as hydro or even diesel. I think the last numbers I heard were approaching about 17 cents a kilowatt hour.

Getting into the one-megawatt units, you could bring their half-megawatt units and bring the cost down somewhat, but they didn't really know how much, because they haven't really been tested in conditions of rime ice. There have been some initiatives in Sweden, but at the end of the day, the government has to make a determination whether to continue with this program or discontinue it. Now, we are all in favour of green power initiatives. There is not a problem there, but when it costs that much more to generate power than replacement power from any of the other alternate sources - when is the government going to make a decision whether to proceed or not with further investments in these initiatives?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the member has stated a number of his views with regard to rime-icing problems and the quality and viability of green wind power, if you will. The member is well aware that there was funding put into these initiatives by the previous government, under the purview of the Yukon Development Corporation. Those initiatives are still underway.

There is an R-and-D project with respect to rime icing and climatic conditions. One would want - and I'm certain the member opposite would want - all the information to have been received by the government prior to making a decision. Particular projects are still underway and once they have been completed then I'm certain that the Yukon Development Corporation/Yukon Energy Corporation will be providing the government with advice in this regard, and I would look forward to it.

Mr. Jenkins: I'm sure the minister would look forward to it, but will she do anything with it? The business decision has to be made sooner or later, and the business decision is whether we proceed with this initiative or not. Are there any timelines applied to this project? Two years, three winters or two winters, or what are we looking at? Because these projects can go on and on and on and on. At the end of a certain period of time, an assessment must be undertaken because we cannot rely, 100 percent, on wind-generated electricity. It is just not there all the time. Unless, of course, they installed the propeller directly over the Premier's head when the Legislature is sitting. We could then probably keep it going quite extensively, but given that we only sit for a very short period of time, we have to provide alternate ways of generating electricity. I just want to know the timelines on when this project is going to be analyzed as to its viability and whether further wind-power generation is going to proceed or not proceed? What are the timelines? Are there any?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I do not have a specific timeline in front of me, so rather than give the member opposite the wrong information, that is a specific corporation question that I will have responded to. I'm certain that the member opposite would agree that, as the member opposite made reference to a business decision, that a business case will form the basis for that decision. I can assure the member that this is a green power initiative and the funding dedicated toward them would certainly indicate that there is a time frame coming.

Once that funding has been spent, there will be a business case made, and a sound business decision will be rendered once the business case is made. As for the date, I'll respond to the member directly.

Mr. Jenkins: I'd like to thank the minister for her answers in that regard, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, one of the other issues with electricity in the Yukon is Whitehorse, and Whitehorse has the dirtiest power, as it's termed in the industry, in Yukon. Some of the cleanest power is in Faro, which, incidentally, is on the WAF grid, and in Dawson, which is a stand-alone.

Now, dirty power is becoming more and more of a difficulty to contend with, given the amount of electronic equipment that we connect to our power lines. There have been a few initiatives taken in the last little while, but what is contemplated in the Whitehorse area to address the issue of dirty power? And I'm talking both brown-outs and also the issues surrounding power factors. Just the number of outages here is unbelievable compared to most other Yukon jurisdictions. Some of the stand-alone plants, Mr. Chair, have way, way better and more reliable power factors and availability. Whitehorse doesn't seem to be the case, and we're constantly experiencing brown-outs for one reason or another. Some of it has to do with rights-of-way not being cleared of brush and the trees falling on the lines, but occasionally the only one that can be justified is the occasional raven that shorts across two lines and causes a power outage. Other than that, there is a very serious problem with dirty power here in the Whitehorse area.

What steps is the Energy Corporation taking to rectify this? There are the suppliers of energy from Whitehorse rapids, from Aishihik and from the diesel power plant, and they provide the majority of the energy except for a small amount of hydro provided by Yukon Electrical.

So, the ball to provide reliable, steady power is more or less in the domain of Yukon Energy, not Yukon Electrical Company Ltd.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I have already answered this question as posed by the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, and I indicated at the time that detailed initiatives by the corporation would be answered in the fall by the appearance of the president at that time, if the member wishes. He can ask the question then and express his political views at that time. Or, if the member wishes, I am certainly able to provide and will provide the detailed initiatives that have been undertaken by Yukon Energy Corporation.

And I recognized in my response earlier to the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes that there was room for improvement, that this has been recognized by the Energy Corporation. There is also a role, contrary to the member's views, for the Yukon Electrical Company Ltd., and I will be writing to them and asking that they provide a listing of their initiatives in this regard, which I will also provide to the member opposite.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I might correct the minister's statements. They are not my political views on it; they are the views of a great number of Whitehorse residents that the power here is not reliable and is called, in the industry, "dirty power". That's a given; that's not a political view, so I ask the minister to not confuse the two, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the initiatives being undertaken by Yukon Energy, I would ask the minister to send over a copy of their initiative plan, not just wait until the fall and question whoever might be in charge of the Energy Corporation at that time. I think that it's only fair that we see what the game plan is for the Energy Corporation to address this very important issue.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I indicated to the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes that I was more than prepared to provide that information to him, in writing, as soon as possible. In fact, I used the word "forthwith". Certainly I'm more than prepared to provide it to the member opposite in writing.

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

The GRA - how can the minister be so certain that the Yukon Electrical Company Ltd. is not going to be applying for a rate increase this fall, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I would invite the member opposite to review Hansard. I said that the Yukon Energy Corporation would not be filing a GRA this year. That was their commitment made to the Yukon Utilities Board in 1998.

I stated, in answer to an earlier question, that I did not speak for the Yukon Electrical Company Ltd., nor will I.

Mr. Jenkins: So, there is a potential for a general rate increase application from the Yukon Electrical Company Ltd. this fall, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I do not speak for Yukon Electrical Company Ltd., nor will I.

Mr. Jenkins: That wasn't the question, Mr. Chair. I said there is a potential for a rate increase application from Yukon Electrical Company Ltd. this fall.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I have said to the member opposite that the Yukon Energy Corporation is not filing a GRA, a general rate application, as was committed in 1998 to the Yukon Utilities Board. There will not be a GRA filed by YEC in the year 2000.

Yukon Electrical Company Ltd. will make their own determination. I do not speak for them. As to whether or not it's a possibility, the member can ask YECL directly.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, there is a potential, and a rate increase application coming forward from Yukon Electrical Company Limited could occur this fall, and that has to be dealt with, Mr. Chair. That's what I'm getting at, and no matter how the minister looks at it, the bottom line is that that is looming on the horizon, given the dependency on diesel fuel and given the cost increases that have been incurred in the utility business. It's inevitable; it's going to happen.

I recognize that the minister doesn't speak for the Yukon Electrical Company Ltd., but she should be anticipating the impact that it's going to have on the coffers of the Government of Yukon, because it will be significant across all departments, as well as the rate stabilization fund or the rate relief program that is currently in place.

Mr. Chair, if we could move on to one of the other areas under the Economic Development portfolio - the Kassandra situation. Currently, there has been one payment made - $1 million upon signing the agreement last July 28, and there is agreement to provide six additional quarterly payments. So, that amounts to some one and three-quarter million dollars that is currently paid out to 123 Inc.

Now, these are U.S. dollars that were paid out, and if we use an acceptable rate of exchange in Canadian dollars, we are looking at $2.625 million that flows to 123 Inc. The three parties represented in 123 Inc., one of which is the Government of Yukon, have been paid out just shy of $80,000 each. So, out of the total of $2.625 million, $245,000 has been paid out to the three parties. That means that the legal costs and disbursements are $2.38 million on this initiative.

I was wondering, given that the sole officer and director of that company is a Yukon solicitor acting on behalf of the three parties, has all of that money been expended on legal and disbursements, or is someone else benefiting in there by way of other than solicitor-client costs, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Chair, first and foremost, I would remind the member that the Kassandra file - if the member opposite will permit me to use that term, which refers to the legal cases to which the member was referring - is being handled, and the lead role - if you will, in terms of the Government of the Yukon - is being taken by the Department of Finance. I am well aware of the member opposite's concerns in this regard, and I have outlined for the member previously that this is a very, very tangled and complex legal matter. As I have said before, legal costs and litigation are something that we are maintaining a balanced position on, with regard to settlement, of costs versus litigation.

The member is asking who else is being paid, other than the legal fees and the exact disbursements - Kassandra, TVX, 123. I'm certain the member would like to get into them all. It's a very complex legal matter. The Department of Finance is taking the lead role. If the member wishes to question me in the context of my role as Minister of Finance, I'd be happy to review that with him.

I understand why he bootlegged it into the Development Corporation. This is a matter that I do not wish to debate on the public floor, as there are matters that are sensitive in nature legally, and, if the member wishes, again I would offer a briefing and a discussion with me on this issue. However, the public forum for a debate on legal fees and on the position of the Government of the Yukon on this matter, I would suggest, is not the forum for some of these sensitive legal points.

Mr. Jenkins: If I happen to disagree with the minister, I don't think she'll find that to be an exception, Mr. Chair.

Well, given the tremendous amount of money involved here and given the taxpayers' exposure to other environmental cleanups and things of that nature and other related problems associated with this, and given the lien-holder's ability to lose out, I believe that it is a subject that should be broached and questions asked on the floor of this Legislature, Mr. Chair, and I will be doing so. So, if the minister wants to deal with it in her Finance portfolio, fine. But I would ask here to spend some time and have a look at some of the dollars that are transferring here, because the expenditures are in Canadian dollars, the funds being received are in U.S. dollars and, at the end of the day, there's a big gap there.

It is carefully laid out to present kind of a picture that is not one that would alarm one, but if you look at half of the legal costs and disbursements - or half of the $2.38 million - as being legal costs, just take a pen and, at $500 an hour for a lawyer, the minister wouldn't have to go very long to calculate how many hours had been put in there. There are only 8,000-odd hours in a year, I would remind the minister.

It is a big issue, and it's a big issue we can leave alone now. I'll be getting back to it in Finance, in general debate, when we get back into that area. Have we cleared general debate in Finance? I don't believe we have.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: Okay, so I have an opportunity to get back to it there. We can clear this area, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I just want to respond to the member opposite's comments.

I have no hesitation in discussing public business on the floor of this House - no hesitation whatsoever. What I have said to the member opposite repeatedly when he has questioned me other times on this is that this is a very complex legal matter.

Yes, I am very well aware of the substantial dollars involved. I have discussed this particular issue on a number of occasions. I have invited - and repeatedly offered - the member opposite to have a lengthy discussion. My concern with regard to this matter is that there are parts of this, because it is a legal proceeding, that are inappropriate for discussion on the floor of this House.

Now, the member opposite can indicate whether or not he is prepared to engage in a discussion outside of this House on this particular issue, or he can continue to bully and badger and suggest that there is something that I am trying to not share with the Legislature.

I'm fully prepared to discuss this matter in Finance with the member opposite. It more appropriately belongs there, and it more appropriately belongs in another discussion.

Chair's statement

Chair: Before we head on, I just would remind, in keeping of a cordial House, that we try not use words like "bully".

Mr. Jenkins: No one is bullying or badgering, Mr. Chair. If that were the case, we'd be here for a very, very long time.

I would like to thank the minister for the briefing that was provided to me by the Department of Finance.

I do have a whole series of questions on this issue, and we'll be dealing with it in general debate in Finance. I don't have a quarrel with that, Mr. Chair, but I'm not prepared to deal with this off the record. I believe that it's very, very important, and it's an issue that takes a long time for one to get one's head around and it has very serious implications, both potentially positive and negative on the Yukon and on Yukoners.

Chair: Is there any further general debate on Yukon Development Corporation?

We'll go line by line then.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Office of the Ombudsman

Chair: Is there any general debate on the Office of the Ombudsman?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The members opposite have received detailed notes with respect to the Office of the Ombudsman, and I would anticipate that the Members' Services Board will be dealing with this.

Chair: Seeing there's no general debate, we will proceed line by line.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair: Are there any questions on allotments?

Are there any questions on the recoveries?

Office of the Ombudsman in the amount of $247,000 agreed to

070a

Chair: We will continue on, then, to capital - there is no capital. Does the total budget for Office of Ombudsman carry?

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures for the Office of the Ombudsman in the amount of $247,000 agreed to

On Elections Office

Chair: We'll now continue on to Elections Office. Is there any general debate on the Elections Office?

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Mr. Harding: I have some questions with regard to the commitment to boundary redistribution. Is that better done in ECO? I can do it in Executive Council Office, if that's okay with the Premier.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, if that's where the member opposite wishes to discuss it, that's fine with me.

Elections in the amount of $607,000 agreed to

Chair: We will now look at the Elections Office capital.

On Capital Expenditures

Yukon Legislative Assembly

Chair: Is there any general debate on Yukon Legislative Assembly?

We will proceed with line-by-line.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair: Sorry, we skipped Legislative Services. We will consider Legislative Assembly Office carried and go right back to Legislative Services.

On Legislative Services

Chair: Are there any questions on the activities? Does the total carry?

Legislative Services in the amount of $1,763,000 agreed to