Whitehorse, Yukon

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I am pleased and honoured to rise today to acknowledge Aboriginal Veterans Day, Friday, November 10, 2000.

In recognition of the significant contributions made by Canada's First Nation citizens during three war efforts in the past century, in 1996 the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs established the aboriginal veterans monument project and the aboriginal veterans scholarship trust fund.

The monument is due to be unveiled on June 21, 2001, on National Aboriginal Day, and $1.5 million has been allocated by Indian and Northern Affairs to the scholarship trust fund, which is open to all aboriginal post-secondary education students studying self-governance and economic self-reliance.

Although unofficial, November 10 has been set aside to recognize aboriginal veterans in ceremonies across Canada. Here at home, everyone is welcome to observe this day at a venue named after an aboriginal war veteran and prominent leader, the Elijah Smith Building. The program is from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. and includes a presentation of commemorative millennium medals, Two Veterans, by Ed Schulz, Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations. The Yukon government will be represented at the event by my colleagues, Minister Wayne Jim, Scott Kent, and Mike McLarnon. We have several aboriginal veterans in the gallery today, and my colleague, Minister Wayne Jim, will be introducing them.

In addition to the impressive contributions made to the Queen and the Allied cause by the Yukon Territory in general, the response from Yukon First Nations in particular was notable, given the isolation and communication limitations of the day. Those who did not answer the call of duty raised funds for the war effort. In Old Crow, the Vuntut Gwitchin donated hundreds of dollars to the orphaned children of London and money to buy clothing for shipment to the Soviet Union. These gestures were rewarded by King George VI with the presentation of the British Empire Medal for their leadership and loyalty, and yet another link of friendship was forged between Canada and England.

In the spirit of unity and respect, I urge the people of the Yukon to join me on November 10 to take a moment and turn your thoughts to the aboriginal people of our homeland who proudly gave their lives and service in the name of peace and freedom.

Mahsi' cho.

Mr. Keenan: On behalf of the official opposition I too arise to recognize the efforts of the many aboriginal veterans who have served for their country. Pete Sidney, young George Sidney, Bobby Austin, Edward Good, the McLeod boys, both Sandy and Malcolm, Harry Davis, who paid the ultimate price, Mr. John Adamson, Elijah Smith and the Van Bibber boys are just some of the warriors who come to mind. We should always be aware of the many people at home - men and women, elders and youth - who stayed at home to support the war effort by providing their knowledge of the land to build a highway in less than a year, to build a pipeline from Norman Wells to Whitehorse, to build airports so planes could be shuttled north. I always remember my mother telling my family of being out on the ice with her dog team, running the fishnet and being buzzed by some of these pilots. So, we also in some cases provided humour and comic relief.

In Old Crow the people gathered. They collected money to send to the homeless children in England when hearing of the devastation in that country. I'm also reminded of Charlie Craft, who, in 1914, lived and travelled with my family and, hearing of the war, walked out to enlist, to return with a medal. This was the first time in many years that he had left the Nisutlin Valley. And to all these aboriginal warriors and their families, I salute.

Günilschish.

Mr. Jenkins: On behalf of the Yukon Party, I also rise to pay tribute to National Aboriginal Veterans Day.

We have much to thank our aboriginal veterans for. The freedom we enjoy today is in part due to the tremendous effort and contribution made by Yukon First Nations.

Thank you. Mashi' cho.

Speaker: I will proceed now with introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Jim: It is my honour and privilege to introduce four First Nation veterans who sought excitement and adventure while serving their country.

Born in 1917, Mr. John Adamson is a well-respected elder of the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation. Mr. Adamson served four years during World War II with the Seaforth and the Third Scottish Regiment. Mr. Adamson is decorated with the Voluntary Service Medal and the Crown Over Crossed Rifles.

Mr. Alex Van Bibber, born in 1916, another well-respected elder of the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation, served two years during World War II with the General Service Infantry and the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada as an infantry machine gunner. Mr. Van Bibber is a member of the Order of Canada and was bestowed with the Commemorative Medal for the 125^th anniversary of Confederation in 1992.

Also, born in 1914, Mr. Archie Van Bibber, a very well-known, respected elder of the Selkirk First Nation, served two years as a private with the Canadian Army during World War II. Archie is a recipient of the Canadian Voluntary Service War Medal, 1939-1945.

Mr. Daniel Van Bibber, born in 1913, is another well-respected elder of the Selkirk First Nation. Mr. Van Bibber served as a private with the Westminster Regiment, 5^th Division, during World War II. Mr. Van Bibber was awarded the France and Germany Star and the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal and the War Medal of 1939-1945.

I would like the House to show its appreciation to these gentlemen.

Applause

Mr. Kent: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome two senators to our gallery today. There is the former member of the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Montreal Canadiens, as well as a member of the 1972 Team Canada, Senator Frank Mahovlich. As well, I would welcome former Commissioner and now Yukon Senator, Senator Ione Christensen.

Applause

Ms. Netro: I'd like to introduce to you today, in the gallery, Norma Kassi, who is one of our former MLAs for Vuntut Gwich'in, and Jackie Lindstrom, from Old Crow. I'd like you to help me make them welcome.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling a legislative return relating to a question raised by the leader of the third party on November 2, 2000.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling a legislative return relating to a question raised by the leader of the third party on October 31, 2000, and I also have for tabling a legislative return relating to a question raised by the Member for Kluane, also on October 31, 2000.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I have for tabling the 1999 annual report of the fire marshal.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT this House urges the Yukon Government to:

(1) work in conjunction with the Federal Government, stakeholders and First Nations to create a fair and equitable Timber Harvest Agreement Process; and

(2) ask the Federal Government to actively seek and continue to obtain comments from stakeholders and First Nations on the draft Timber Harvest Agreement; and

(3) also ask the Federal Government to begin planning of the consultation meetings and workshops that will arise after the written comment period is complete.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Parks Act should be utilized to create territorial parks rather than the Protected Areas Strategy.

I also give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) mining claims that have already been staked when new parks or protected areas are created must be respected; and

(2) the claims staked by Canadian United Minerals, that were included in the much-expanded boundaries of the Tombstone Park, are legitimate, bona fide claims that should be allowed to be developed without fear of buy out or expropriation by the Liberal Yukon government.

Speaker: Are there any further notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, our government is open and accountable, and part of that accountability means taking steps to define policies on proper and effective relationships between the government and its Crown corporations - corporations that are established by acts of this Legislature and managed by boards of directors.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to deal with four fundamental aspects of policy relating to the mandate and governance of the Yukon Development Corporation.

Firstly, there have been questions in the public and in this House about plans to change the mandate for the Yukon Development Corporation. I am announcing that the government will not modify the current mandate of the Yukon Development Corporation. The corporation will continue to focus on energy-related investments, infrastructure, research and development, and programs, and to act as the sole shareholder in the Yukon Energy Corporation.

Secondly, this government will ensure that the board of directors is clear on the government's energy policy expectations. In turn, the government will respect the governance role of the board of directors to oversee the business affairs of the corporation.

As members know, there has been confusion over the roles of the Crown corporation (Yukon Development) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Yukon Energy. This confusion has existed since 1986 when the two-tier structure was created to accommodate the devolution of NCPC assets. Over the years with various orders-in-council, and what must seem to outsiders as a continuous process of revisiting energy policy issues, the original mandates of the two corporations have become blurred. When Yukon Energy assumed direct management of its assets on January 1, 1997, the board of directors of both corporations and the government began to work to clarify their roles and responsibilities to guarantee effective governance and accountability to shareholders, the Legislature, ratepayers, and the public.

Since assuming office, we have carefully reviewed the written protocol between the Government of Yukon and the board of directors for the Yukon Development Corporation. This protocol was put in place just before the election.

We have concluded, like many Yukoners, that the current system is not clear about who is making decisions and who will answer for them. The last administration did not go far enough in providing clear accountability and an enduring governance framework that will solve the problems.

To this end, Mr. Speaker, I am announcing today that, during this term, our government will bring forward legislation to amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act. Our amendments will establish mechanisms for the accountability of Yukon Development Corporation to government, this Legislature and the public. It will also clarify the accountability of the minister to the House and to the public.

The legislation will clarify the mandate and the roles of all parties while respecting the duties of the board of directors to oversee the business affairs of the corporation. It will also establish the accountability of government for the overall direction to the corporation by requiring that all directives to the corporation be tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

The amended legislation will require the Yukon Development Corporation to submit an annual and multi-year strategic plan for government approval and review by the Legislative Assembly. It will state that representatives of the Yukon Development Corporation must attend this House annually to report on the corporation's activities and address members' questions. Finally, the legislation will ensure a coordinated approach to government energy-related programs.

My government also commits to consultation with Yukoners on these legislative changes. The process of developing new legislation will take time. Accordingly, the government will address the requirement for interim direction to the corporations through a letter of understanding that will be signed off with the board of directors of Yukon Development Corporation and then tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, since taking office, I have devoted considerable time and resources to addressing this complex issue. Our plan will address the fundamental issues that have lingered over the last decade, once and for all.

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, the minister is speaking about consultation. I have to say that I have grave concerns about what the minister means by consultation. Here we go again. The Liberals already want to make changes without any consultation. They're going to throw away a protocol that involves stakeholder and public consultation, and replace it with a letter of understanding with no input from the public whatsoever.

The minister will still be held responsible for actions in this interim period. She cannot hide from the responsibility because she is waiting for legislation to come forward. She will be held accountable. There are many, many thorny issues that have to be dealt with - electrical rates, rate relief, governance issues, and the list does go on.

So how does this minister plan to improve the relationship between the territorial government, the YDC and the YEC? The Liberals say one thing and do another, Mr. Speaker. And what we've seen in the last six months is a Liberal government that says it's unhappy with what the last government did, then they turn around, they change the names of programs and initiatives, and in the end, they make no changes at all, but they call them their own.

I will be very suspicious of the minister's intentions until I receive more substantial information on this major disruption to the workings of the Yukon Development Corporation.

The key to this relationship between corporation and government is one that must ensure that the energy decisions are the sole property of Yukoners. From what we have seen recently, I would not be surprised if, in the end, the energy decisions will be the sole property of the Liberal Party and no one else, particularly the Yukon consumer.

When will this LOU be signed off with the board of directors of the Yukon Development Corporation? What, if any, input has there been from the stakeholders on this LOU? What policy changes will be made with this LOU? Without some public input to these changes, we will be setting the Yukon Development Corporation adrift.

If the minister says that legislation is forthcoming during her term, can she be more definite? If she is proposing legislation, she has to get the ball rolling right now on the consultation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins: On behalf of the Yukon Party, I rise to respond to this ministerial statement. I welcome this ministerial statement about the direction that is being provided to the Yukon Development Corporation. I am encouraged to hear that there are no plans to change the mandate of the Yukon Development Corporation that, since the Yukon Party's government regime, has been focusing on energy-related investment infrastructure, research and development and programs.

Many Yukoners and all ratepayers will never forget that $16 million of Yukon Development Corporation money was squandered on a derelict sawmill. This must not be allowed to happen again.

I also see that the Yukon Development Corporation will act as the sole shareholder in the Yukon Energy Corporation. How does that dovetail with current offers on the table to First Nations to assume an equity position? Will that equity position be provided to them in the Yukon Development Corporation, as the Yukon Energy Corporation appears to be totally held by the Yukon Development Corporation?

The Yukon Party also supports the inclusion of the Yukon Development Corporation Act - this - and the Yukon Development Corporation Act now. I welcome the mandate amendment in the Yukon Development Corporation Act.

I am concerned that the Yukon Energy Corporation management structure is becoming too top-heavy. The confusion that arose between Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation appears to be over-played, because prior to the written protocol between the Government of Yukon and the board of directors for the Yukon Development Corporation that was signed by the previous NDP government just before the April territorial election, the boards and management of both corporations were one and the same people. I don't believe they had any confusion about their respective roles. Now we see the creation of another position of president for Yukon Energy Corporation, created out of the previous position of president, who was responsible for both. We now have two presidents, and we'll have two boards.

It appears that the supposed confusion over the respective roles of Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation is being used to create a larger management structure, and we all know who ends up paying the price - the Yukon ratepayers. I welcome the accountability provisions that will be included in the amended act. Both the minister and the boards must be accountable for the operations of these corporations. I personally was recently criticized for making this point. So, I am pleased to see this recognition in the act's amendments.

Some of the recent decisions by the boards, such as the multi-million dollar Mayo-Dawson transmission line, are of concern, and I would ask the Premier to re-examine the financial viability of this project while work is going on to amend the act - my point being: don't let these legislative mandate changes be used as a smokescreen to hide a close scrutiny of the current projects being undertaken by Yukon Development Corporation/Yukon Energy Corporation.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond. I appreciate the comments from the members opposite. I particularly appreciate the fact that the member for the third party has recognized that the accountability is a very important issue and one that we are moving forward on.

The speaker from the official opposition suggested that the protocol was good enough, that, in other words, things were great so why are we changing them, and that nothing should change. Well, the protocol did not go far enough, and the protocol did not clarify that roles have become blurred, because they have. When Yukon Energy assumed direct management of its assets on January 1, 1997, the board of directors began work to clarify their roles and responsibilities and to try to deal with these governance and accountability issues.

The members have asked some specific questions and have voiced some suspicions. I would encourage them to focus on the questions. And, in response to that, the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes asks about timing for legislative changes. In that regard, I am hopeful that they would come before the next fall legislative session, so that would be fall 2001. The member is quite correct in that work must begin immediately, and we are working on that.

There has been a suspicion voiced by the Member for Klondike with respect to the Mayo-Dawson transmission line and its construction, and I would encourage the Member for Klondike to ask technical questions of the witnesses who are appearing before this House later this afternoon in that regard. Although I am also fully briefed on and aware of the details of the project, I would encourage those questions in precisely this forum. While it has been standard practice, Mr. Speaker, for members of the corporation to appear before the House, it wasn't a requirement. What we're proposing to do is to regularize and standardize that and to ensure that it happens and cannot be adjusted by other governments.

The ultimate goal for me as minister has been to increase the openness and accountability and clarify those lines of accountability to this Legislature and, most importantly, to the Yukon public. It's a very important issue for me personally and one I'm looking forward to ensuring happens, with the help of the people involved with the Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation.

In terms of timing of the letter of understanding, I've had discussions with the chair about it. This is not a situation where the government proceeded without speaking extensively with people involved, and I would anticipate further reports to members of the House in that regard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Will the Premier outline the normal conditions under which the Executive Council Office would get involved in another department's business and how this would come about?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Well, Mr. Speaker, plainly this is an attempt to get to the issue around the Beringia buyout, and the fact that there was a representative from the Executive Council Office, who served as a mediator during this process - it's not difficult to see the big plot underneath this.

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants a written response to his question, we'd be happy to provide that, as we've actually mentioned to the Member for Kluane about three times now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fairclough: Well, Mr. Speaker, the wrong minister got up to answer the question. It was a very simple question about the Executive Council Office and how they are involved in other departments' business. That question is for the Premier to answer, not the Minister of Tourism. Now, the Minister of Tourism has been stonewalling for days on our request for information about the government's purchase of inventory and equipment from Mike's North Communication. The Premier's principal secretary confirmed that the Executive Council Office had some involvement in this matter. He even named the individual who facilitated the final negotiations, yet the Minister of Tourism insists it was done by her department, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier confirm that the Executive Council Office did get involved in this matter, and will she tell the House when and how this took place?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, that information is going to be included - and has actually been included - in a legislative return today, as well as previous documents that we have forwarded to the caucus. Perhaps the Member for Kluane hasn't kept the leader up to speed on that.

We have not been stonewalling. We have been providing information, as it became available to us. We have been very open about it. Anything we have been asked for, we will be giving to the members opposite. We have committed to that and we have been very clear about that. We have nothing to hide - nothing to hide at all.

Mr. Hughes is coming up. There is going to be an investigation that starts on Monday. I invite the members opposite, who continually make these veiled innuendoes about the process, to take those allegations and talk about them on the floor of this Legislature, where they are protected. Even better, I challenge them to make those allegations outside the walls of this House.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the ministers on the government side are confused about what their roles are and which departments they are responsible for. I see the Premier is prepared to let the minister twist on this one, despite the minister's efforts to stay detached. For the last two weeks, we have watched this government give non-answers to our questions here. They are open and accountable, they say, but watchers out there in the communities see, every day, the questions not being answered by the members opposite.

The Minister of Tourism is not responsible for the Executive Council Office. Really, the buck stops with the Premier. Once again, will the Premier tell the House if she, or anyone in her political offices, gave any instructions to the Deputy Minister of Executive Council Office with respect to this purchase?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is the one who is confused - extremely confused. First of all, all the information that has been requested is being collated. Most of it has already been given to the NDP caucus.

The members opposite are factually incorrect. They are saying that nothing has been given. There have been legislative returns today. There was a letter that the Member for Kluane already alluded to, which I gave him last week. Attached to that letter was a great deal of information. Part of that information was the contract that was signed by the former Minister of Tourism, Mr. Keenan, at the time.

Mr. Speaker, this is getting a little off. It's getting a little off, because what the side opposite is trying to do is sprout all kinds of misinformation in the hope that it is going to make things look bad. Well, we have nothing to hide. Everything that was done in this process was above-board. The reason why the Member for Whitehorse Centre has asked Mr. Hughes to come up here and conduct an investigation is because he knows there is nothing to hide.

Now, the side opposite will continue along in this line and they will feel very smug and proud of themselves on this issue. But, to tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to hide. We are doing the best job we can. I'm quite confident that, as a result of the conflicts commissioner's inquiry, the member's name will be cleared, and we will hopefully hear the end of these allegations on the protected floor of this Legislature.

Question re: Beringia Interpretive Centre, purchase of gift shop

Mr. Fairclough: There haven't been any allegations made, Mr. Speaker. Open and accountable, yet that minister could not answer one of the questions. The Premier could not answer any of the questions that have been asked of her, Mr. Speaker. And my question again, is to the Premier - not for premier Cunning, and not for the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Speaker. It's a simple, straightforward question, because the buck stops with the minister, at her desk, with the Premier.

Yukon people want and deserve to know if they got a good deal in this government's transaction. They want to know the business case. Is the Premier satisfied that the $68,000 purchase was necessary and in the public interest?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is once again factually incorrect. I have answered every question that has been put to me by the members opposite; and I have sent written responses. More are being collated, and they will come to the members opposite. There was a legislative return today. There was a letter that was written to the members opposite, which the member opposite acknowledged earlier in the week. It is impossible to state this over and over and over and over again, apparently - or it's impossible for the members opposite to listen to what has been happening in this Legislature. Because every day the members opposite stand up, ask for a response, and I stand up, I say, "You can have a response, and it will be in written form." And I have forwarded over half those responses already.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: And the Member for Kluane says, "Where are they?" Perhaps the Member for Kluane hasn't been aware of his surroundings lately.

Now, to be absolutely clear, he stood up on Tuesday and referred to the letter that I sent to him, which had part of a written response. Today, in legislative returns, I gave more answers to his many, many inane questions about this issue.

Now, the member opposite no doubt will get even more caught up in the detail of this issue. He has asked for virtually the size of the negotiating table. He has asked for minute detail on paper clips, et cetera, et cetera, in the inventory.

Now, I have forwarded all that information as it became available -

Speaker: Order please. Will the minister please conclude her answer?

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the minister said she answers all the questions. She never once mentioned whether or not they were satisfied with this $68,000 purchase and whether it was in the public's best interest. Not once did she mention that, Mr. Speaker.

This is to the Premier. The Premier is sloughing this off to the Minister of Tourism, and once again, the buck stops at the Premier's desk.

This is an expenditure by her government; it involved her department as well as the Department of Tourism, and it also involved one of her MLAs, Mr. Speaker.

Now, listen carefully to the question, as the Premier. Is the Premier satisfied that this transaction was conducted in the most appropriate manner in all respects? Answer the question, Premier.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I love the way questions are asked in this House.

The department did the best job that they could. We are very satisfied with the work that was done by the department. The members opposite obviously have allegations about this process. That's what they do every day when they stand up.

Mr. Hughes is coming up on Monday. He is conducting an investigation. During that process, the Member for Whitehorse Centre will have his name vindicated. The process will be shown to be clear, open, accountable, and in the best interests of this government. But to be absolutely clear, the members pussy-foot around it. If they would like to come out with the truth, make their allegations, then I suggest they do it here in the Legislature. Come on out with it. Or, even better, if they have the courage - and they don't seem to have - they could do it outside the walls of this Legislature.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I encourage the ministers opposite to at least talk to the reporters when they are being asked questions on this, and don't be hiding. Be open and accountable.

Once again, the Premier didn't answer the question. I asked if they were satisfied with this transaction, and obviously they are skirting away from the question, Mr. Speaker.

Well, this side of the House is not satisfied with the answers. The answers we have been getting are non-answers. There have been promises to provide information in writing. When? Sometime in the future, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a document for tabling, which is a letter from the Member for Kluane asking the conflicts commissioner to broaden the scope of his investigation of this matter, pursuant to section 17(1)(d) of the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act.

Speaker: Order please. Will the member please get to the question, or do you have a question?

Mr. Fairclough: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will not be asking the Premier or the Minister of Tourism a final supplementary question.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has made the allegation and has been factually incorrect. He said that I have not spoken to reporters. There was a story in two papers where I spoke to reporters, and I've been very open on that. And the member opposite says that I have not answered questions. I have been sending written responses for days to the NDP caucus.

The members opposite are factually incorrect. They make allegations constantly. They don't have the courage to put it out in the open here, which is ironic, considering that they are protected within the walls of this Legislature, and they certainly don't have the courage to make those allegations outside.

Question re: Mining industry, commitments to

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question for the Premier on her recent trip to Vancouver to host a luncheon for the B.C and Yukon Chamber of Mines.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that this was another "Welcome Back to Yukon" conference on resource development. It is a fact that mining exploration and development in the Yukon has plummeted 87 percent since the Yukon Party government left office, while in Alaska it has jumped 72 percent since 1996. It's a billion-dollar a year industry in Alaska, Mr. Speaker.

Canadian mining companies are investing in Alaska rather than the Yukon because of Liberal/NDP policies that affect mining such as the protected area strategy, which is being used to create territorial parks. While the Premier has delayed enshrining the protected area strategy in law until next fall, can she explain how she is going to use this time to address the concerns of the mineral industry about the continual removal of lands from mineral exploration? It is no secret that the federal government will be creating another park at Wolf Lake in the Teslin area. So I'd ask the Premier if she has an estimate of the total area of land yet to be withdrawn from mineral staking through the creation of more federal and territorial parks. The question is directed to the Premier.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:The member opposite started out his question by making veiled references as to why things were proceeding in Alaska, in terms of mineral exploration, at a greater rate than in the Yukon. I am very pleased to have an opportunity to share with the member opposite that I asked the mining executives and an investment analyst whom I met with in Vancouver precisely the same question so that I could stand on the floor of the House and provide the member opposite with an answer. And I asked permission, Mr. Speaker, to quote them, and the quote was: "Success breeds success. You don't have Pogo in the Yukon. That's the difference in exploration expenditures".

The other points that were made to me are some of the points that the member opposite has raised, in the fact that there is concern in the mining community about the Yukon protected areas strategy. There have been concerns expressed. Those concerns were expressed because the previous government, his new-found friends to the right of him, botched up the process. That was the problem, and we're trying to fix it, and we are going to fix it. I've made that commitment to the mining industry, and we will, as has my colleague, the Minister of Renewable Resources. It takes more than six months. We can't fix all the NDP mistakes in six months. We're working on it.

The other points were with regard to the Yukon mining incentive program that I made during my address to the mining community.

Speaker: Order please. Will the Premier please conclude her answer?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: There are a number of good initiatives to assist the mining industry, and they were well-received.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, we don't have a Pogo deposit here because we have created the Fishing Branch reserve area around it and the Tombstone Park. The deposit extends across the border. It's just like the oil and gas in southeast Yukon. They're drilling and exploring right up to the Yukon border, not across it. We have tremendous potential. Mining claims have been bought out in the Fishing Branch area, and I would like the Premier to report on her attempts to buy out Canadian United Minerals claims in the Tombstone area, and will she make a commitment not to use the protected area strategy to create more massive territorial parks?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of issues bootlegged into that one question. The issue is attracting the mining industry back to the Yukon. That is what we're doing. The way we're doing it is by fixing the protected areas strategy. We're dealing with that issue.

I also made a commitment to the mining industry. I stated it in May. I restated that there would be no more goal 1 protected areas strategy until we had resolved the problems. That commitment is crystal clear.

We are also working to attract the mining industry back to the Yukon with our increase in the mineral exploration tax credit, which has been very well-received, particularly by Yukon companies who benefit from the increased exploration expenditures. Also, there is the Yukon mining incentive program, the increases in funding that we announced last year and the continuation of both of those programs. All of those announcements were well-received by the mining community - very well-received.

The member opposite might be interested in having a look in the Vancouver Sun of Tuesday, November 7, at the reporter's version of the address that I gave.

We're working on it. We will not accomplish it all overnight, but progress is coming.

Mr. Jenkins: Mining activity in the Yukon - the reason the Yukon was created as a distinct area of Canada - is at an all-time historic low in the over 100-year history of the Yukon.

Can the Premier explain why the Yukon Chamber of Mines and the Klondike Placer Miners Association would even want to participate in drafting the protected areas strategy legislation, when their voices are effectively drowned out? The Premier has stacked the deck against resource extraction industries in this review. There is very little opportunity for the mining community to be heard. Then, the Premier runs around buying out mining claims. That sends a very nice message. What is the Premier actually doing?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've tried repeatedly to answer the question for the member opposite. I'm not going to thank him for either the question or the patronizing lecture. What I will share with him for the third time is what this government has done to rejuvenate the mining industry and re-attract the mining industry in the Yukon - what we have done.

We have committed to completing and dealing with the Yukon protected areas strategy and to making sure we get it right. And the Klondike Placer Miners Association has committed that they will be back at the table, because, in their words, if you're not there, your voice isn't heard.

Also, there are many members of the mining community who have suggested that yes, they want to be there and they will help us deal with the Yukon protected areas strategy, and ensure it's right.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: What else have we done? I've said to the member opposite - the Yukon mining incentive program. Not only did we increase the money immediately upon taking office, we've extended the program at the increased funding level and committed to it for next year.

We have increased the mineral exploration tax credit from 22 to 25 percent, and have committed that it will be in place for an additional year. The proponents of both Expatriate and Howard's Pass project have also stated their appreciation for our efforts, as have a number of small businesses that benefit from the fact that there are companies that are up here, exploring for minerals, and have a long-term view toward...

Speaker: Order please. Will the Premier please conclude her answer?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:...development of those projects.

Question re: J.V. Clark School, construction delay

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education, regarding capital priorities.

Capital projects in Education are planned well ahead and ideally involve all partners in education. Certainly, when we were in government, we worked closely with the school councils and others to determine what school construction projects should take place and in what order.

What is the current schedule for school replacements and other building projects during this government's mandate? And what process has the department been using to set the schedule?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the question from the member opposite. As the member opposite is well aware, we just had school council elections in the early fall and they will be reconvening at the school councils meeting coming this November. It will be at that time that we will be asking for their input on any capital projects they see in their respective communities. As did the previous government, consulting with communities through community school councils is a very good way to seek input on the information direct from the communities. So, we will be following through on that as well.

Mr. Fairclough: Following the fire in Old Crow, the people in Mayo graciously allowed their school to be postponed for a year. Now, the minister has delayed the Mayo school project even further. He has given excuses but nothing consistent, nor a convincing reason for doing this.

Does the delay of the Mayo school mean that capital projects for schools in Carmacks and in Pelly, which are already on the department's long-range capital plan, have also been put back for a year?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I very much appreciate hearing from the member opposite that the school in Mayo is delayed. That is very encouraging. Obviously, the member is listening to some of the responses that I have provided.

The school is going to be delayed a matter of a few months before it's opened. I have been in touch with the department on the capital works program as initiated and, to the best of my knowledge at this particular moment, we're going to follow through on those plans.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals made a political commitment to rebuild Grey Mountain Primary, "the little school that could". The Member for Whitehorse Centre has conveniently told the world what the government's game plan was for Grey Mountain Primary School and for Whitehorse Elementary.

Does this political commitment to rebuild Grey Mountain Primary School fit into the capital priorities list? Will it take place before or after the Carmacks and Pelly projects?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the member opposite on one little aspect. There has been no decision made with respect to the Whitehorse Elementary School. That was a nice little slip that he put in there to create further apprehensions in the community, which they seem very adept at doing. We, as have previous governments, follow through on our consultations with communities, with school councils, with whatever means that we can in planning our capital works projects in the schools. This government, yes, during the last election had specified that we would replace the Grey Mountain Primary School. I have followed through on further correspondence to the school council, have met with the school council, have worked in following through on our commitment to replace that school, and we will.

Question re: J.V. Clark School, construction delay

Mr. Fairclough: I'm glad that the minister has committed to the priority lists that have been put forward by the school councils and has taken back control of the government priorities from the Member for Whitehorse Centre, who said that they were committed to this project of "the little school that could." Now, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister changed his tone twice once again. The cost overrun is now $1 million. That's the new Liberal math. When the Hamilton Boulevard twinning project went overbudget, that was just the cost of doing business today. Can the minister tell the House what the business case is for delaying a school project when the health and safety of children and staff are at risk?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, again, one thing that this government is trying to do in being open and accountable is to build up trust relations. There have been several attempts, and I have followed through on several commitments that I have made with members opposite on issues that they felt were vital to their community. The Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes and I worked on resolving an issue that he specifically brought to my attention. We're working, as the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin has eloquently put, on how we consult through the Education Act review process. We are in consultations with her now on how is the best way to approach.

We, in front of Chief Hager, came to an agreement with respect to Mayo, with respect to the health and welfare of the kids there to lower the anxiety that's obviously being built up with these children, that we wouldn't politicize those issues on the floor of this House. We shook hands on it, and now he's bringing it up again.

Mr. Fairclough: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's the minister opposite who started this whole thing again, after we had a discussion upstairs. He didn't answer the question as to what the business case is for delaying the school project.

Now, this delay has cost children, staff and the whole community of Mayo, in terms of health, jobs and knowing where they fit into the whole government scheme of things. I ask the minister again to listen again to the question. What performance indicators is the minister using to determine the cost of not doing business in Mayo and not addressing the legitimate concerns of the people of Mayo?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows well, as they are very familiar - or maybe they're not familiar, and that's why we're in this pickle with respect to the tendering process - with the cost overrun on the school, which is $1 million. We made that very clear. We have been in direct contact with them, with the residents in Mayo, with Chief Hager, with the band office there, with the school council, with the principal, with the mayor and with anyone else who wanted to find out the specific details.

With respect to the agreement that we came to with Chief Hager and with the interim leader of the official opposition on a handshake, he brought it to the floor of this House. I will refer the member to Hansard of November 1, where he brought it to the attention of this House, as I was going to honour the agreement that we shook hands on. He is the one who brought it up in the House.

Mr. Fairclough: Well, we're not getting any answers from the members opposite. We agreed to work on this together, yet there is no answer and no direction from the Minister of Education. I am sure, when we are in Mayo tomorrow, we are going to find out exactly how the people of Mayo feel about this government's priorities.

Now, the government has scheduled some political meetings with the community leaders to discuss Mayo's concerns. There seems to be some question as to whether or not the minister and the Premier are prepared to discuss these concerns with the whole community. They are meeting with the village and the First Nation, but they didn't want to meet with the whole community. Now, they've changed their minds.

Will the minister commit to a public community meeting when he and the Premier are in Mayo tomorrow, as he said they would? Will he commit to more follow-up meetings with the community?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows full well that it is a full-blown community meeting that we're having tomorrow. And he has continually, throughout the week, shook a finger at me across the House and whispered, obviously loud enough for me to hear, "Just wait until I get up to Mayo. Just wait until I and the Premier get up to Mayo."

Well, we are looking forward to getting up to Mayo. This is our second trip up there. This is the member opposite's first trip up there since speaking on this issue specifically with the community as a whole. So no, we are going to go up there, and we are going to face the community. We will have answers for them. We have answers on health. The Member for Klondike keeps chattering on this way about carrying a bucket of bleach up there. Well, we take the health and welfare of the kids just a little more seriously than that member does, because we're going to go into full cleaning mode as we had indicated to the community, and that will be done as we are meeting up there.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:I move that Bill No. 3, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 3, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I am pleased to introduce these estimates, which will update our spending plans for the current year and thereby enable us to continue or initiate a number of important services for the benefit of our citizens.

This supplementary will see voted O&M and capital spending for the current year increase by some $37.2 million. At the same time, for a variety of reasons, our revenue inflow will increase by over $27 million. When a reduction in the contingency is taken into account, the net result of these changes is an increase in the annual deficit of roughly $5 million.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak to several of the major components of these changes, prior to discussing some of the new initiatives we are introducing by the way of estimates.

Yukon's own source revenue will increase by $5.3 million over that previously forecasted. While some of this is the result of increased investment income, the bulk of it is due to new projections of oil and gas revenues, which have increased substantially with the recent rise in energy prices.

This increase in revenue is, of course, shared with First Nations, and that offset is shown in the Department of Economic Development as an expenditure item. In addition, some of these revenues are used to offset the formula financing grants and thereby flow to the benefit of the federal government.

The increase in resource revenues is welcome, but we're concerned about the impact high energy costs are having on the prices Yukoners must pay for hydrocarbon-based fuels. It also has a significant impact on the operating costs of the government itself. To that end, we are investigating ways to shield Yukoners, particularly low-income earners, from these increases.

Our formula financing transfer has also increased significantly as a result of several factors. In the first instance, over $9 million of the increase is due to an adjustment made to that transfer to cover additional costs we will have to bear under the public service superannuation plan.

In essence, then, Mr. Speaker, this item is a wash. It's an increased inflow of funds that's accompanied by similar outflow of funds. The adjustment to the formula transfer was made by the federal government, because the increased cost of the pension plan resulted from the federal decision about its funding regime.

We have been encouraged by the federal government to explore the possibility of establishing our own pension fund, and work on this matter is ongoing within the government.

The general formula transfer has increased by more than $12 million, or four percent - a significant and welcome increase. The formula is subject to a number of variables, which are constantly being updated by Statistics Canada and the conference board.

These variables are dependent upon changing circumstances in the Canadian economics scene and, to a lesser extent, circumstances prevailing in the Yukon.

The Canadian economy and provincial finances are performing very well at present, and this performance is reflected in the latest releases from StatsCan and the conference board. These have been used in the present forecast. I should mention that the formula remains very sensitive, and the amount of money that we get can get down as well as up.

On the spending side of the equation, almost $20 million of the increase is accounted for by revotes of lapsed 1999-00 spending and the new dollars required for the higher superannuation costs. As I mentioned earlier, this superannuation increase is accomplished by special adjustment to our formula financing grant.

The remaining requirement for new funding is a result of a host of factors, which range from volume increases in existing program spending, to new initiatives that we, as a government, are undertaking in order to deliver on our contract with Yukoners.

At present, I will only speak to the larger, more significant new spending since we have ample opportunity in general debate to examine every line. Each department has been granted increased funding for the new collective agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. This increase includes additional monies for the Hospital Corporation and Yukon College.

I know the opposition supports this increase, and I look forward to their support when it comes time to vote.

This amounts to over $4 million, and our contingency fund is thereby reduced by a similar sum. Included in the request for the Executive Council Office is $150,000 for legal work and public forums associated with the Yukon Act review. I need not emphasize to this House the importance of this review, and the impact that a new act will have upon constitutional development in the Yukon.

There is also $448,000 in severance payments for former political staff of the NDP government. The Department of Community and Transportation Services requires almost $380,000 for various road washouts, mudslides, brush and weed control and for fuel price increases. This is the first step in reversing the years of cuts under both the NDP and the Yukon Party governments.

There is also additional recoverable funding of $50,000 for sports and recreation groups included in the department's supplementary operation and maintenance requests. The new monies required for capital in this department consist largely of revotes and the transfer of budgetary responsibility in the amount of $2.9 million for the Connect Yukon project from the Department of Government Services.

Given Community and Transportation Services' responsibility for communications and infrastructure, it was felt appropriate that the department should administer this project rather than Government Services. The Department of Economic Development requires $375,000 more in operation and maintenance funds as the share due to First Nations based on the increased oil and gas royalties reflected in this supplementary's revenue calculations.

Included in Economic Development's capital vote funds are, among other things, the microloan program, at $105,000 announced when the current year's main estimates were tabled and costs in the amount of $300,000 associated with the NDP's proposed purchase of port facilities in Haines and Skagway.

We are also asking for $612,000 to establish a unit to deal with activities and issues surrounding the Alaska Highway pipeline. Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting line item, and I can't wait to see the members opposite vote against that one.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please; order please.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The opposition, Mr. Speaker, has been talking out of both sides of its mouth on that issue. They are for the pipeline; they're against the pipeline. The Member for Kluane has spoken out clearly against the pipeline in his efforts to bring the members of the green wing on board for his leadership campaign. He's called the pipeline a flop that could leave the territory in ruin. He has also called the project a one-time wonder that could leave a big black hole in its wake. The Member for Watson Lake has half-heartedly endorsed the pipeline and said they're going to promote it if they, too, were re-elected. Of course, he has also referred to it as "a far-off pipe dream". So it's obvious the member's doing an NDP flip-flop because he doesn't have a position.

We'll see where the Member for Watson Lake stands, and we'll see if he votes against jobs for his constituents.

This money is critical if we are to have a significant influence on the pipeline's routing. We are fulfilling our contract and our commitment to continue to promote the Alaska Highway pipeline. Our contract stated that we would aggressively promote this project, and that's what we're doing.

The benefits of this project to the Yukon are self-evident, but this is not to say that there will not be some environmental and socio-economic impacts. These will require special, careful examination and thought. The pipeline office will therefore also be heavily involved in facilitating discussion of these important matters among the various communities of interest - citizens, First Nations and municipal governments.

The operation and maintenance funding request for the Department of Education contains a number of items. Among them, there is $400,000 for the increased utilities costs and over $700,000 for student financial assistance awards. The latter item results from increases in the number of students benefiting from the program and in the cost of travel. It is also in keeping with an election commitment that we made to increase student grants by 20 percent. Both opposition parties voted against this item in the spring, and I expect that they will do so again.

Over $100,000 is also being requested for additional educational assistance to provide in-classroom support for students with learning needs, and $200,000 more is needed for substitute teachers' salaries. I am certain that the NDP will support this money.

As well, monies have been requested for a weekend and evening supervisor for the Whitehorse Public Library. This expenditure will see much-needed security increased during these hours.

Finally, there is the provision of $25,000 in the supplementary for testing that will lead to individualized education plans to eliminate the current backlog.

In capital, Education will receive $220,000 from the Gates Foundation for public libraries' computer access. This is a welcome and important project in this age of Internet. This money has, of course, already been announced.

In addition, $200,000, which is totally recoverable from the federal government, will be spent on the older workers pilot project, a program to provide support to reintegrate displaced older workers into sustainable employment.

Funds are also being requested for design work for the Porter Creek Secondary School roof replacement, and classroom expansions for the Catholic elementary schools. There is also a small but important sum, $20,000, being provided for a school-based information technology Web site to provide students with employment and career information.

These important education initiatives are an indication, Mr. Speaker, of our commitment to the students, parents and educators - our partners in education - throughout the Yukon. We intend to make our already excellent education system even better, and I can promise Yukon parents, educators and this House that further innovative ideas and the funds to implement them will be forthcoming from our government in the coming years.

The Department of Government Services is requesting additional operation and maintenance monies for several items. One of these is for increases in property insurance premiums of almost $100,000. Over $100,000 is needed for legal and consultation costs associated with the CRTC hearings, and $120,000 is also required as a contribution to the waterfront trolley operation.

On the capital side of the ledger, the department is transferring $2.9 million to Community and Transportation Services as a result of the change in responsibility for Connect Yukon. That's the matter I spoke to earlier.

As well, the information system infrastructure upgrade requires some $500,000, and more than $300,000 is needed for business incentive rebates due to an increase in qualifying projects and our commitment to Yukon businesses.

Mr. Speaker, one of the highest priorities of Canadians and the people of the Yukon is the maintenance of our health care system. We are all well aware of the pressures being placed on this system as costs continue to escalate at an ever-increasing pace due to ageing populations and rapid advances in technology of health care.

The Yukon is not immune to these trends and this supplementary budget reflects their impact upon our small jurisdiction. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are able to afford to fund these increases and thereby maintain the excellent quality of health care which we, as Yukoners, enjoy. I want to assure this House that maintaining that standard will continue to be one of the most important priorities of this government, and we will be successful in doing so.

This supplementary sees more than $7.2 million in new operation monies flowing to our Department of Health and Social Services. The opposition has been making a lot of noise about how they support health care. I know they will be supporting this increase in what is obviously a priority of all members of this House.

While some of this increase is for superannuation and the collective wage settlement, over $4.5 million is for price and volume increases in the department's programs. The minister responsible will, of course, be speaking to these matters at some length in budget debate. But, I'd like to give members an indication of the nature of the items that are making up this sum: medical travel, $800,000; reciprocal billings, $755,000; Yukon doctors contracts, $255,000; contributions to the operations of the Canadian Blood Services, $250,000; adult residential services, $234,000; volume increase in residential programs, $832,000; price and volume increase of child care costs, $288,000; chronic disease and pharmacare increases, $1,000,000; increase in pioneer utility grants, $80,000; increased costs in ambulance services, overtime, auxiliaries and dental contracts and so on, $338,000; and extension of child care operating grants to communities, $218,000.

We have had to direct , therefore, considerable monies from our accumulated surplus to fund these needs. We are fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to have an accumulated surplus to draw upon and this shows just how valuable being in a surplus position can be for any government. Of course, the opposition now wants the government to spend the surplus down to zero. We intend to manage the taxpayers' money carefully, to ensure that there is a savings account to meet critical, urgent, unplanned expenses.

With this supplementary, we have been able to correct a number of budgetary deficiencies, which we inherited from the previous NDP budget, and to begin a number of new initiatives, in keeping with our election platform and promises.

Let's review for a moment what has been addressed in this supplementary budget - a budget the NDP has said addresses nothing of importance to Yukoners.

The budget addresses the following: First Nation relations, revitalizing the economy, maintaining and enhancing quality health care, expanding tourism opportunities, improving highway maintenance structure, increasing financial and educational assistance for our students, providing housing for our seniors, tackling legal aid, and many other priorities.

These are important issues for Yukoners, issues that have previously been ignored. This government is addressing these priorities and will continue to do so in future budgets.

The Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker, is also requesting funds beyond those needed for the Public Service Alliance of Canada collective agreement and pension plan purposes. Over $1.1 million is required as the additional cost of our contract with the RCMP for territorial policing costs. The largest component relates to salary increases resulting from a new wage agreement the RCMP have arrived at with their members.

Additionally, the police require funds for a community justice coordinator for the Dena Keh tripartite agreement, auxiliary policing costs and the community constables program.

Monies for the RCMP are also needed for a number of community justice initiatives, search and rescue operations, and several other new or ongoing programs.

Mr. Speaker, we promised to enhance legal aid funding and the supplementary reflects our actions in that regard. Included in the Justice vote is an additional $300,000 to bolster that program's funding.

Legal aid volumes have been increasing and the program was clearly underfunded. This enhancement will ensure that legal aid can continue to provide its essential services to those requiring such assistance.

The NDP, during four years in office, sat on their hands. "It's a federal problem," they said. "We can't do anything about it." Unlike the previous government, we're acting. Six months into office, we've delivered on $300,000 in new funding for legal aid. We also paid off the debt of $287,000 that had accumulated under four years of NDP mismanagement.

Legal aid was such a priority of the NDP that they didn't bother to pay off the Legal Aid Society's debt. Monies in the amount of $75,000 are also included in these estimates for an increase in the amount of training provided to our justices of the peace.

The Public Service Commission requires funds for several purposes, the principal one of which, at over $200,000, is to cover increased premiums for workers' compensation purposes. In the Department of Renewable Resources, there is $49,000 set aside for climate change analysis. The majority of the money in this department is for superannuation and collective agreement increases.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there is one person in this territory who does not recognize the crucial importance of the tourism industry to our economic well-being. Tourism has sustained our economy through many difficult times, and its importance continues to grow as we penetrate new visitor markets.

Our government is anxious to further encourage this growth, and this supplementary reflects our first steps in so doing. These estimates contain $200,000 in operation and maintenance funds to begin a stay-another-day marketing program. The objective of this program is self-evident from its name. The additional economic benefit the Yukon could receive by our visitors staying with us for another day is enormous, and it is time we devoted resources to this end.

The estimate also contains operations money for a number of other initiatives that the minister and her department are undertaking. Among these are monies for a number of winter festivals and events, including the Yukon Quest and marketing support for the Thunder on Ice event. Capital in the amount of $50,000 is requested to support our foremost winter festival, the Yukon Sourdough Rendezvous.

The department has also made a number of internal reallocations of funds to support other initiatives, including improved air access to the Yukon, and Convention Bureau and museums funding, to mention but a few.

The minister will speak at some length on the new direction the department is taking, and I am certain that it will be of interest to all members of this House.

The Yukon Housing Corporation and its important programs have not been forgotten. This supplementary contains $250,000 to establish a seniors housing trust. Our seniors deserve this trust, and they deserve the best. This fund is the beginning in providing for seniors' future housing needs by improving the quality of their living environments.

The minister responsible for the Housing Corporation will of course be providing the House with more complete details about the program during supplementary debate, and I'm certain that members and Yukoners will be pleased with the direction our government is taking.

Mr. Speaker, there are a great many other important items contained in these estimates; time does not permit me to address them all at present. Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that they all contribute to the well-being of Yukon citizens and are part of our plan to improve the lot - economic and social - of Yukoners.

The end results of the bill I've introduced today is an annual deficit for the year of over $33 million. Admittedly, there will be lapses, as there always are; and a deficit there will be. This is on top of a deficit of over $16 million incurred by the previous government last year. We are expecting to end the current fiscal year with an accumulated surplus - a savings account - of slightly over $30 million before any lapses are taken into account. The government's operating expenses for one month are between $35 and $40 million. This is considerably less than it was several years ago. The main reason it has dropped so dramatically is the pre-election spending spree of the previous government.

I promised earlier in these remarks that we would always maintain an adequate savings account for the Yukon and its people. This we will do, and it's therefore obvious that annual deficits of the magnitude of the last several years cannot be sustained.

We have a plan to turn this trend around, and we will adhere to that plan, so that Yukoners will never have to face the spectre of debt to finance the government's operations. This, Mr. Speaker, is a promise we made when elected, and it's a promise we will keep.

I'd like to make a few comments on the long-term projections that were tabled with this budget. The long-term projections contain personal income tax cuts announced earlier. On January 1, 2002, the territory's personal income tax rate will be 44 percent of the federal income tax rate. This represents a reduction of six points, or 12 percent, in personal income tax since this government took office.

That's less than the Northwest Territories or Nunavut. They are at 45 percent. These are real tax cuts, not phantom tax cuts that were talked about but never implemented under the NDP. The NDP talked about and promised to reduce taxes, but they never actually did it.

In terms of additional long-term projections, net capital expenditures are projected to be $56 million for the next three years. This is an increase of $8 million per year over the previous government's projections.

Mr. Speaker, this budget contains spending measures that focus on our seven priorities, including over $7 million for improved health care services, and I look forward to support for these initiatives from all members of this House.

Applause

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply and make comments on the supplementary budget that was tabled by the Liberal government.

First of all, it is not a budget about the economy. The biggest thing that's facing the Yukon right now is the economy that we're in. It's basically a budget about government. It's not about steering the ship of state; it's about rearranging the deck chairs, Mr. Speaker. There is no forward vision and no forward moving as promised by the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, we had three and a half years of listening to the Liberal Party not take sides, sit on the fence, promise Yukoners that they will be taking a direction, they will have and give positions sometime in the future. "Wait until the election." That's what they said to Yukoners. The Yukoners waited until the election, and all during the election and the campaign, "Wait until we get into government because we don't know what we're doing yet; we don't have a position and we need guidance." I guess that's what they were saying.

The one thing they did to give certainty to Yukoners was to adopt the NDP budget, because that's the only way the Liberals could have given certainty to Yukoners, Mr. Speaker. That's the only way they could have given certainty to Yukoners. They said publicly that they would adopt the budget and that they would pass it in its entirety. People believed them, Mr. Speaker. People voted for that Liberal government because they were not messing things up and bringing in anything new, because Yukoners knew the hard work that the NDP had done in consultation with the public and consultation with the municipalities, communities and First Nations to put this budget together. And the Liberal government wanted to carry that forward, promising Yukoners certainty by bringing this budget forward.

And what do we have today? Broken promises. In every department, Mr. Speaker, there are broken promises from this Liberal government. They cried poverty since they got into government - for the last six months. There was no money; projects were cancelled because they were slightly overbudget, by two percent. That was only in rural Yukon, Mr. Speaker. But projects in Whitehorse get approved. A $2.3-million project on Hamilton Boulevard went over $500,000 - a way bigger percentage than the Mayo school, yet it was approved by that department. It was okay; it was just the business of the day. And that government is being inconsistent with the private sector, with those who are putting money forward to develop their lands, and I think about Lomak, which had to pay extra dollars for its intersection on to the highway. But this government is willing to foot the bill for the City of Whitehorse when it comes to intersections, and then it's like mortgaging the future, Mr. Speaker. They will collect the money back from those people who buy lots in the future, jacking the price of the lots up to pay for this.

This is according to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, Mr. Speaker, and she said it in public.

That's where we got our information on this. It's a shame that that's the approach this government is taking. It's not different or better from previous governments. It's the worst it has ever been. They are certainly not living up to their promises of even small things like being open and accountable. They won't answer questions in the House when they are asked. They are certainly hiding from something and are not wanting to bring out what is being asked of them in this House.

The Tourism minister answers questions for the Premier. This certainly doesn't seem right when it is a straightforward question to the Premier.

They have been crying poverty for the last six or seven months. They have no money and cannot do anything for communities. There is no creation of winter work. I guess, therefore, they have no vision, no forward direction or forward movement for the Yukon at all, except for the future. According to their platform, it's all about the Future. According to their throne speech, it's all about the past.

The biggest issue that's facing Yukoners right now is the economy. What does this government do in their supplementary? It is all about the future again - pipeline jobs, not now, but years down the road. There could be many jobs. I know we all know approximately what the project could be and what it would mean to the Yukon. It could double or even triple the population here. There will be a huge impact on the Yukon like we've never seen before.

One interesting thing, though, about the pipeline is the pushing and pushing and pushing for jobs and creating an atmosphere out there that everything is okay in the Yukon. I heard the Member for Whitehorse Centre say this. They looked at the project, and everything was good. At first glance, flipping through the pages, everything was good.

And what is this, a 25- or 30-year-old project that was put together? It was okay for the members opposite. They said it was good, not even thinking about the people in the Yukon at all when it comes to the environment. It was okay for the members opposite, but the environment - just railroad it through, put a pipeline through and not have any discussions with Yukoners at all. And the government position is that it's okay. I think not, Mr. Speaker. I believe communities and Yukoners are going to be questioning this project and how it affects them in a lot of detail.

Just recall when the big PR work came to Yukon and how people reacted to that - questions about migrations of animals, caribou herds, moose and everything else, possible damage to our water. This pipeline goes under lakes. It goes under the lakes. It doesn't go around or across them. It goes under them. And it's a major impact to the people in the Yukon. It goes right down the highway. It will be seen every day by people.

Yukoners know that there are going to be changes. There have been tremendous changes over the last 20 years, Mr. Speaker. One of the big ones is the settlement of land claims. Well, the Member for Whitehorse Centre said everything was just fine. He flipped through it, and I guess he was satisfied that First Nations may have made comments in the past, but now they have agreements in place, they have settlement lands, and they're concerned. In the agreements, Mr. Speaker, there are clauses about compatible land use and so on. So, are First Nations going to be interested in the particular project? Of course.

They'll be very interested in the impacts to the environment. They will also be very interested in job creation, their involvement and how they could buy into this. The list is probably endless for what First Nations would like to see in regard to this pipeline. I hope that the Liberal government doesn't take that lightly.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to settlement of land claims and the different First Nations, there are lands that are selected specifically for development, whether it's mining, oil and gas or forestry. There are lands selected for protection. There are wetlands. There are special management areas. There are lands that are for traditional use - hunting only - and there are lands that are selected just for the fact that they produce medicines.

So, I was a bit, I guess, shocked at the Member for Whitehorse Centre just coming out and saying everything was just fine, and if they had their way the pipeline would have gone right through without consultation with communities, like they're doing with many other things in this House - many other things.

Their economic priorities are all about the future. The pipeline and the forestry jobs are all about the future. Now, can the Liberal government tell us when they went out to support communities when they were in need of support by their government, particularly the industry in southeast Yukon, in and around Watson Lake? This Liberal government didn't even go up to see them, Mr. Speaker. This was about jobs. This was about money that supported families.

And it was more or less a revitalized industry; things got moving. The Yukon started to produce more and more of its own lumber for export. Instead of having our raw logs disappear out of the Yukon, we were doing it ourselves here. And that Liberal government did not lift a finger to help the people in Watson Lake. So what happens? What happened is that people left. People are leaving Watson Lake, and that's why I say, Mr. Speaker, that it's all about the future. Because this Liberal government relies on things that could and might happen, like devolution.

If only we had control of our resources, then maybe we could make decisions about jobs in the forest industry - if only we had control of those resources. Now, that was a big thing, when the Liberals first got in. Now, it's a delay. And what do they say about devolution now? "Oh, it's okay, it gives us time to work on negotiations." That's what they say. There's more time to work on negotiations. Well, that's all done, Mr. Speaker, and it has been done for a long time. It's in the federal hands; we're working on the Yukon Act. We're trying to devolve this down to the Yukon level now, and I have not heard one mention at all by the Liberal Party about being prepared and getting ready to have the responsibility of this resource - none.

The previous government had worked on some of these in the department. The Renewable Resources department, for example, has been working with the federal government because it is one that is more greatly impacted as a department. But is there any continuation of this work? Are we prepared now? Have we done all our homework? There has been none of that to give reassurance or certainty to Yukoners at all.

The Liberal government had said that they would pass the budget in its entirety. When it came to the hard work of making decisions, there were none there, for example, with the school. No one paid attention to the contract. Was it in trouble? Did it need some political attention? Could it have used some political direction? Nothing - it was too late.

The project started; the money was in the budget. The concrete is poured, the foundation is done and the sub-floor is on. And to the people in Mayo, that meant the project was going ahead. The impact of that one particular project is tremendous for the people in Mayo, not just to the students and staff of the school, who are now forced to live with the conditions of that school for another year. Not just to them, but to the community - the Village of Mayo and the First Nations, who had worked together on putting training programs in place. I didn't hear very much from the members opposite in regard to training. They put training programs in place to get their carpenters up to speed and ready for the project.

They planned projects in the future, so that once the school was finished, because there's very little activity in the communities, they can take one project, move the carpenters over to another one and to another one three years down the road.

Now, it all floated around this whole school project. The First Nation, for example, and the administration building they wanted to build was on the part of the ground where the old school was or is now. So, it delays that project, as well, unless the First Nation finds a new spot for this project. And then they're basically faced with a community that doesn't have all their members up to speed with skills that could be used on these types of projects. That's what they're faced with.

And the village, which wants to plan a building for their 100^th anniversary of the community - where is that going to be now? Is the government ever going to be funding two projects in one community that are fairly large? I don't think so. So they see that slipping away.

Not only that, but the businesses in that community, which, because the tender was let out and was out there in the public, started planning about how they could provide services to the workers who come into the community, building that school - hotels, gas and that type of thing. That has gone now, and what the government is asking them to do is to provide that service, but in the summertime. Now, they're going to have to make a decision here on whom they have their facilities available for. Are they for the workers or the tourists coming in? What little they have, they would like to house and take care of. That's a pretty major impact for a small town like Mayo, which is basically at the end of the road, except for Keno, which is at the end of the road, and where they don't get a whole lot of tourists coming through.

That school construction, Mr. Speaker, wasn't about putting people to work now, this winter, like it was intended. We know that times are tough right now. People need to work in the winter, and part of the reasoning for bringing this whole thing forward was to keep people active throughout the winter. It didn't happen.

So, it wasn't about this supplementary in the delay of the school. It's not reflected in there - about holding monies back or anything. It still has an expenditure there. But it wasn't about creating jobs this winter. There is nothing in here about winter works at all.

It's a big expenditure - $37 million when government cried poverty that there was only $14 million in the kitty. And now they come out with a huge supplementary that makes government bigger. Bigger O&M, creation of more government workers - that's what this does. There are some small good things in there, too, of course.

What about the mining community? This Liberal government wants to go out and promote mining, revitalize the industry out there, and get more activity going. Well, there are other problems we have out there with those companies that want to develop a mine - the permitting process, for example, where things should have been streamlined and could be worked on and helped out by this government. I don't believe that the Liberal government even sees that as a problem right now. We have four or five mines that are fully permitted and ready to go, and they're just waiting, basically, for investors and the price of metals to go up, both precious and base metals.

Communities have worked with the mining industry and different mining companies to try and create their own activity in the communities. But what we have been seeing lately is some bad management out there - with BYG, for example, and it not paying proper attention to the everyday goings on at this particular mine. The federal government has stepped in. They stepped in, Mr. Speaker - this is the Liberal government - to basically contract out the cleaning of this mine, and in doing so, they ignored First Nation final agreements. This little step, which I never heard the Yukon Liberal government even pipe up about, breached the final agreement. No one on that side of the House Mr. Speaker even said anything to their big brothers in Ottawa about this - no one.

What could be happening is that people come in, do their work and leave. The final agreements were put in place for a reason. What we have is our Premier heading down to Ottawa and Vancouver, promoting mining, oil and gas. Those things are fine and dandy to do, but there are mixed messages when she comes home to the Yukon. She hasn't done her homework; she hasn't spoken to the people of the Yukon.

It was okay to go out and promote land sales, and north Yukon, but they forgot to talk to First Nations about it, with final agreements and with communities. They just forgot about that, but they'll do it later, once the sale is over.

That's Liberal consultation, and we've seen it over and over and over in this House. It's a sad thing to see, when people were expecting something different and had a lot of expectations of this Liberal government, in that they haven't been in government in the Yukon before.

Promoting mining and increasing the dollars that we put forward for exploration - that's what we need in the Yukon. People want that. Even First Nations are not against mining at all, Mr. Speaker, and I could tell you that the three First Nations in my riding - Nacho Nyak Dun, Little Salmon-Carmacks, and Selkirk First Nations - all have selected lands that are directly related to mining. The Selkirk First Nation, for example, has a land claims settlement that's right over Minto Explorations, and it's all with good reason. They didn't do this just on their own, and "The heck with you, mining company." It didn't happen that way. It was through close, working relationships with these mining companies that this happened, and governments agreed to it.

That's a new move and a big one by the Selkirk First Nation. They want in on the action. The mining companies would like to deal with them. They're very much looking to the future, Mr. Speaker, and maybe this Liberal government could take some advice from them from time to time, rather than going out of the Yukon, talking up a storm, without really knowing what Yukoners really want.

Now, there's lots of potential out there in and around Mayo. To some people, Keno's dead; to others, it is just waiting. Everything's in place. Go through the mill and the machine shop. It's still being taken care of. Pretty sad future.

It looks pretty dark, but there's still a lot of potential in Mayo in regard to mining and lots of potential around Carmacks in regard to mining. Agreements, as a matter of fact, have been put in place with mining companies, Mr. Speaker, with the Carmacks First Nation, in getting people to work. But still, as things have gone bad, this Liberal government did not even look at final agreements.

Now, the Liberal government has made mention that one of their directions is to have all departments, as did the previous NDP government, make sure that they are fully aware of what the final agreements are spelling out. That's a good thing. Everybody needs to do it. First Nations need to go back through that, too. There are new people coming in, and oftentimes this important, historic agreement is left aside.

And it's a sad thing to see, because First Nations are self-governing nations and they are senior governments. As a matter of fact, they have control of more land than the Yukon government has, Mr. Speaker.

The Liberals have also said - and it's in their supplementary again, Mr. Speaker, and it's also in their throne speech - that one of the seven points of their top priorities to be graded on in the future is land claims, and I certainly agree that it should be a priority. But their explanation about land claims is about settling outstanding land claims. That was their point, and that's what they would like to be graded on, and, Mr. Speaker, that's a very, very small part of First Nation final agreements. The big job is to get these final agreements implemented, to make sure that all governments abide by the clauses that are put forward in that final agreement.

One of the reasons - the main reason, and it's in the throne speech - that the Liberal government had put settling outstanding land claims in there was that it was key to increase economic activities, not that it was important to First Nations to get up on their feet and be responsible for the resources and the people of their First Nation. That wasn't the reason. And I was shocked to hear the Premier say that it was because it was key to increase economic development.

That would give certainty to the investors out there, to the general public, and to the First Nations and non-native people around the territory if we have settlements of agreements and ratified final agreements. We're only working with a couple here, Mr. Speaker. The rest have basically had extensive negotiations and have very minor issues to deal with. Some have put on the table some real ones that could be resolved, like section 87 and the loan repayment. I asked the members opposite if they would ask the Finance minister in Ottawa if he would forgive this loan that was given to the First Nations to negotiate these final agreements - if he would forgive it in the same manner that he had forgiven millions and millions of dollars to countries like Uganda and so on that owe money to Canada. They're forgiving that, but the first peoples of this land, of this country, were not even given that consideration.

I asked the Premier to suggest and recommend that the Finance minister in Ottawa do exactly that. Basically, what that would mean is that the $70-plus million - I don't know what it's at right now, Mr. Speaker, between $70 million and $100 million - would be going from Ottawa to First Nations, and it would be monies being spent in the Yukon. Now, some are in trust funds and put away for 15 years. Others have gone to pay for elders and some have been used for economic development.

I would think that would be a very positive thing, given the special relationship we have - or that government has - with the government in Ottawa to get that done.

First Nations are very interested in this. They have suggested many ways of how this could happen. The other one, of course, the section 87, which, yes, was an issue to the Liberal government - but where do they go with that? What do they do with it? There's nothing, other than it's outstanding and they are working on it.

But we had an Income Tax Act passed through the House. It was an opportunity for the Liberal government to act in good faith and do their portion when it comes to First Nation wanting at least that section - section 87 - to be forgiven until such time as they ratify the agreements. That is for those First Nations that don't have final agreements. There are not many of them right now, but it would put them in fair playing grounds, as other First Nations had with the break that they got when they ratified their agreements. So, as a top priority, is it really a top priority of this Liberal government? I would think not, because their inability to do and act upon - and given the opportunities that they have - suggests that there is no action and it's not of that much importance to the members opposite. But maybe it's a good thing for promotions and promoting mining, that they're pushing hard the land claim agreements. It's key for certainty and increased economic activity. If that's the case, Mr. Speaker, it's a shame, a crying shame that that type of approach is taken.

The implementation of land claims agreements are really important, and they could move the economy in the Yukon a lot further ahead than where it is right now. We have seen a huge increase in activities with First Nations when it comes to them wanting to implement their final agreements.

The training that has been taking place, the setting up of their offices - this is not an easy job. I don't think any government can come in and just set up that quickly, without a huge injection of dollars.

You look at Nunavut, which is obviously getting a whole pile of money for setting up their offices, and they're basically taking a model from the Northwest Territories. But here we have individual First Nations trying to set up a government structure. Now, how do you go about doing that and try not to duplicate what maybe your neighbouring First Nation is doing? The Northern Tutchone, the three First Nations - how do you set up a lands office and make available to the public information that's readily available, with regard to maps that have been agreed to and passed through the final agreement? Laws that need to be passed, whether they're hunting laws or whatnot - it's a difficult thing for a very small population, and it needs help, and it needs the respect of this territorial government and of the federal government, and it's not happening.

Devolution was another big point that this Liberal government wanted to do. It's one of their seven points, and they wanted to be graded on achieving devolution. We've heard over and over again - even from the Premier - about the delay that is basically taking place now. We're not going to have control of our resources in April 2001. It's a year from then - April 2002.

But what was said was that it basically gives us enough time now to negotiate this devolution. Mr. Speaker, that negotiation is already done, and it has been done for awhile.

The federal government is working on the Yukon Act, Mr. Speaker, so that they can have the tools to pass through the House to bring that responsibility down to the Yukon level. Of course, the federal election has thrown a wrench into this process, but I did not hear the Premier say to the public out there that they'd be pushing hard to make sure this is the first item on the agenda. As a matter of fact, the Liberals said if they get back into power - which they probably will, but maybe with a minority government - they would reconvene Parliament immediately. I did not hear the Premier say at all - or pressure the federal Liberal government to make sure devolution is on the table. I did not hear that, but there was a willingness to wait for another year.

Mr. Speaker, that's two years already. Now, we'll be going through a change of ministers. If it ended up as a minority government, then there would be a lot more discussion from opposition parties in passing this through the House of Commons.

It's a scary thing - when there is an opportunity, you go after it. There was an opportunity. They didn't take it upon themselves to see devolution as important, and I think it's a shame. First Nations, on the other hand, have been working hard on this. They have worked hard with the previous government to have some devolution take place, and that was oil and gas. It's the first time we have ever had control of oil and gas in the Yukon; it was the first time in 20 years that there was a land sale under the NDP.

I noticed in the throne speech and in the budget speech that the $20 million that Anderson Exploration is going to be spending here came up again. It's the same money as the previous year, Mr. Speaker, so there's nothing new in that respect.

First Nations are working hard on PSTAs. They want to be implementing their agreements. I haven't heard a whole lot coming from the Liberal side from Education or from the Premier about this very important matter. I thought it would have taken place, because it really could affect the different departments in government. If First Nations, for example, are not satisfied with the standards or the school system that the Yukon government has had in place for many years, they have the option to negotiate and draw that down to their level. Like a school board, they could hire their own staff, their own teachers and principals and so on, and set their own standards and create their own curriculum.

Well, in my view, Mr. Speaker, I think that governments should be working very close with First Nations so as to not have two schools in one community or duplicating programs that we have in place. The First Nation realizes this, too. They are willing to work with our present system, but if things don't move, they will move the other way. And the people, of course, that will suffer the most out of this whole thing or could benefit the most, would be the children.

Out of all this talk about oil and gas, mining, development and forestry, I haven't heard the Liberal government talk about land use planning at all - nothing about land use planning.

This is a pretty important tool, Mr. Speaker, and it could create a lot of good things for Yukoners, if we move at the speed we should be moving. It will give a lot of certainty to Yukon, and to investors who want to invest in the Yukon. Yet I haven't heard a whole lot coming from that Liberal government at all, on this very, very important item.

There is a lot of frustration building up right now, with First Nations wanting land use planning to take place. It's part of their final agreement. We have to do it, and delaying it is not the way to do it. Vuntut Gwitchin is putting its team together, and moving ahead. Teslin - although they have overlap issues - is moving ahead. Northern Tutchone - three First Nations that take approximately 25 percent of the total land base in the Yukon, putting all their territories together, 20 or 25 percent - that land use plan is not taking place. They want it done. I haven't heard anything coming forward from the members opposite about support, or giving new advice about how to make this happen. Things change from day to day, and this is very important to Yukon for the development of Yukon, for increased activity in the mining sector, and oil and gas for the Yukon.

There is also another one that's important, and that's the protected areas strategy. Now, the Liberal government has said that they are going to review the protected areas strategy, and that they will do it through - get this, Mr. Speaker - mining exploration. Those are the words from the Premier. The words from the Premier are that YPAS will be implemented through mining exploration.

That's the words out of Hansard, anyway, that I see.

I think it's a shame, Mr. Speaker. They said it didn't work and that it was no good - voted against it when they were on this side of the House. They did not want to see protected areas. The Tourism minister voted against that. They couldn't see the importance of having that type of strategy in place, a tool to work with for looking at important places in the Yukon, whether it's calving grounds or habitat protection of some type, and having the tool to deal with it.

It was a bad thing. It was no good until they got in government and saw the benefits that took place with the fishing branch. Then, all of a sudden, it was a good thing and they smiled in front of the camera as they cut the ribbon. That was a flip-flop. They voted against it, but when they really looked at the details, they knew it was a good thing.

One of their priorities as government was to review YPAS, to make sure that the Chamber of Mines had a bigger say on the process for developing protected areas. They were going to take it out to the people who developed this. It wasn't the NDP government that developed this strategy, Mr. Speaker. It was the organizations out there - people in the Yukon, in the environmental community and the mining community. They all developed this strategy together. Yet, that Liberal government did not like it. They said it did not work. It didn't work, until they had to cut a ribbon and then it was okay. But they promised Yukoners that they were going to do an extensive review of the strategy.

I haven't seen a team put together. I would think that if they're really serious about doing a review and if what they have been proposing changes the strategy tremendously, they would take it back out to the people and make sure that everybody has input into how these changes are being made. Maybe it's going to evolve into the Yukon mining strategy or something like that. I hope not.

There was a lot of discussion about how this government will be moving forward in southeast Yukon, looking for a protected area there, but there has not been one mention since they have come into this House about that - not one mention.

We have Wolf Lake and Y2Y still to deal with. People would like to know what's next on the list. Where are they working? They want to know if there's input. They don't want it to be snookered in with, "Oh, we've done this and now can I have your comment", as they have been doing in the past. They don't want that to happen.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said that this supplementary budget of $37-million spending is on top of the $500 million that has been spent - it's all about the future. That's what she said.

A few months ago, they were crying poverty and shut the school down because it was $500,000 over, but they are spending $37 million in addition. They couldn't do it on the Mayo school but that's what they're doing. They're going back to the future and they're spending the money on themselves - on government - making government bigger, with more O&M. I can remember the debates in this House about O&M bad, capital good.

Now, the increases are over six percent - 6.4 percent - in O&M. That's a pretty large jump. On a supplementary budget, that's a large jump. That's probably setting a record. I've never seen a supplementary budget that high in pushing the O&M that high in government.

What's being promoted here by the Premier and the Liberal Party is a lopsided government - focus on mining and oil and gas and little else as far as development. And I could tell you that people in the Yukon are looking beyond that. We've always depended on the resource sector in the Yukon, particularly mining, and it has always been a boom-or-bust economy - we're doing well, then we're down in the hole the next year, and then we're doing well, then we're down in the hole. People wanted to move away from that. Do we have more to offer the world than our minerals? There's a lot we have to offer, and I haven't heard this Liberal government say at all what they're supporting, what they can support, any new thoughts or any new initiatives put forward with regard to the economy.

There's nothing about diversification. They mention it a couple of times. Even in their supplementary, they've mentioned diversification. Maybe it's just to have that word in the supplementary budget. But what does it mean to them? Trade and export was just a no-no with the Liberals when they were in opposition. Now, the Premier has booked a flight to China.

So we have the Tourism minister, who was going to be concentrating closer to home, dealing with Alaska and B.C., trying to increase road traffic. We have a Premier who was going to be dealing closer to home, same thing, Alaska, B.C., Canada. And what we've seen is increased travel. I would like to see the travel budget of these members opposite in their first six months.

The very first day after being sworn in - the same day she was sworn in - the Tourism minister was off, heading to Calgary, without any instruction. Maybe she had a few written words, but without knowing her department and without being given good direction by Yukoners, she was out there promoting, or trying to promote, Yukon. What we heard was that she did like to fly, and liked to see different places, and of course, she enjoyed the meal.

We've seen the Premier accept the Prime Minister's private jet to the Yukon, which cost $30,000, to pick up the Premier and take her to Ottawa for a dinner and fly her back. That's what we've seen.

And the Premier accepted it; she thought it was a wise way to spend taxpayers' dollars. It wasn't Yukon money, but it was taxpayers' dollars. And it was okay for that. It was okay for her. But at the same time, before she left the airport, our MP - who happens to be NDP - was waiting for the same plane, waiting for a ride. She was not offered a ride to the same destination as the Premier. What a shame.

What we have is a Liberal government now that's pushing oil and gas and really relying on decisions being made outside the territory. Pushing for oil and gas, the pipeline and promoting it are all good things, but the decision is not going to be the Yukon government's at all. It will not be Foothills Pipe Lines that makes the decision. It is the other companies involved, that have the dollars, that are going to make this project work. The member knows that but does not give that proper information to Yukoners.

She knows full well that, sure, the mining industry is very important. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of support for placer miners of the Yukon, but we're basically relying on mineral prices that may or may not go up in the future. It's all about "back to the future", Mr. Speaker.

They said they wanted to focus on efficiency and to spend our money wisely. The Member for Whitehorse Centre said, "We just don't throw money at things." That's what was said. Well, I think there was a problem here, and money was thrown at things, Mr. Speaker, many different times.

How do you resolve all the support you have out there, the front-line workers in the campaign? Well, you give them a job, a high-paying job with taxpayers' dollars.

You don't need to go through a proper process. Just give them a job. Take care of your own instead of looking at Yukon - throwing pork chops out there, Mr. Speaker.

Yet, when it comes to really important issues and programs in the Yukon that provided jobs to communities, that provided winter work for many of the communities inside and outside of Whitehorse, they cancelled it or scrapped it. They call it "under review." What does that mean, Mr. Speaker - "It's under review"?

The community development fund is under review. There is no assurance by this government that it would be continued. We have urged the government over and over and over again to make sure that this important fund continues and that communities do look at their priorities and have it funded by this one mechanism that we have out there, this program, when you can't find monies anywhere else to fund their priorities. And I think the Liberals across the way just don't agree with one another. The Member for Whitehorse Centre says that we are not going to be focused on recreation centres, that we don't see that as important to communities. That's because he hasn't gone to the communities to see what the communities want.

Another member stands up in support of recreation facilities. In putting their budget together, you have to wonder how they come to a conclusion on the supplementary, because every day in this House - in Question Period, even - they say two different things.

In the response to motions, backbenchers have something different to say than what Cabinet is saying. It's quite obvious that they're not talking with one another, particularly when it comes to recreation facilities. They say they don't see the benefit of CDF. Well, the Minister of Health and Social Services said that he was in Mayo and had a little pool game with one of the youth in Mayo. Well, that project was a CDF project - the youth centre. They hadn't had one for so long; it was a priority. They put that project together, and the Minister of Health and Social Services enjoyed that.

What I would like to see the Premier do, if she wants to do a review of CDF, is review some of the CDF projects that are out there and see what could be enhanced now. Quite often things change. Recreation centres and youth centres in particular can always use improvements. So I would like to see more dollars go into that, and doing improvements to what is out there now. There are day cares and there are cooking courses that communities have enjoyed through the CDF. I remember going to the final day in Carmacks, where they had a cooking course, and they had students from Carcross taking that course. It was fantastic, and they loved it. And I was amazed at what they can do. This was a camp-cooking course, and it took a couple of thousand dollars of CDF money - a few thousand dollars of CDF money - to help make that happen, and the community appreciated that.

We have others under review. The trade and investment fund and tourism marketing fund are under review; fire smart program is under review. It's basically attached - separate, though, but attached - to the CDF, because applications get approved or rejected through the same mechanism as a CDF, but that's under review.

And I can remember the Liberals, in opposition, talking about the importance of having safe communities. This is as a result of the Minto fire, of the Fox Lake fire, the threats to communities that took place, and maybe communities really needed to have some sort of protection or sense of protection that, yes, they do have a fireguard and it's basically a starting line to fight the fire and put it out - not that it would stop a fire by any means. But that was cancelled and scrapped - projects half done. The applications that came forward from Carmacks, from Mayo and other places across the territory were in phases, because you couldn't do it all at once; the cost was too high. What it did do was provide people with winter works and get a project going. Now it's half done, and it's okay for this Liberal government to cancel that important fund. Why is that? I can tell you right now that the people in the community are upset about initiatives such as this, which benefit communities, disappearing, and disappearing quickly with no hope in sight.

What about really important projects, or bigger projects than we have, that I have mentioned, like Connect Yukon? Connect Yukon is disconnected. This important project did not cost governments any money. It would have taken the immigrant investor fund and invested it in an important project that benefits everybody in the communities, bringing their telephones and Internet access up to the same speed as Whitehorse.

Well, he may not feel that that is important, but between the businesses in Whitehorse, it's important. We want to communicate well to the communities. It's important. To the people in Keno, it is very important. Businesses are run out of that community by access to Internet, and it's slow and cumbersome. They go through Mayo. And, of course, people were very happy to see this project go ahead. And all of a sudden, Faro and Ross River are cut out of the loop because of changes being made by that government - a lack of information between one department and the other.

Now, the NDP had worked on important projects out there, and it takes a lot of energy to get some of these things done. The Liberal government had said that they are promoting and pushing mining. What happens if we have the Minto mine, for example, open up - or the one on Prospector Mountain - the Casino mine? What happens if the Casino mine opens up into production? That would require a road to go into it - a major road. If it's a small one, it's either going to be a highway or a road. If they were hauling the ore out toward Carmacks, up to Whitehorse, to Skagway, they would be hauling three to four times the ore that was hauled out of Faro. It is a huge, huge deposit, low grade, and they would have to basically have to mine it in massive amounts to make it work.

Where would we take it to - down the highway, Skagway or what? Right now we don't have proper port access. This government has been trying to negotiate and get something in place, basically, forever to make sure that our industry has tidewater access, and today it has been scrapped. It's not even under review. That's how bad it is. It's not even under review. This is really important. I thought there was support for the mining industry and for Yukon and it's all about the future. What happened to this really important project? Scrapped, not even under review. Talks didn't take place; there wasn't enough interest in it. What we have is a $37-million supplementary budget and no thought about the Haines and Skagway ports - nothing at all.

Now, the Liberal government cried poverty when coming into government six months ago. There was no money, nothing they can do. Any little project that went over gets delayed or cancelled, like the Mayo school, which was $500,000 over, and now it's $1 million over. Maybe in a week or two from now, it might be $2 million over. That's not counting what the community suffers from this. That's not counting that at all. I wonder if they're adding the cleaning of the school to that.

All along we had mentioned and made the public aware that there was at least $56.2 million in surplus, exactly what the Premier said in this House when she had her financial advisor from the Finance department here with her. That's what she said, on the same day that the rest of her caucus and Cabinet members were screaming, "$14 million" - the same day. That Premier allowed the ministers and the backbenchers to give misinformation to the general public out there and allowed them to cry poverty.

We underestimated what the surplus was, Mr. Speaker. It's $64 million. It's larger than we thought. The Liberals were left with a very good and sound financial position in taking over this government. It was very good - too sound - because they don't know what to do with the money. What they would like to do is make government larger. When everybody else in the Yukon is talking about the economy, they put money into creating bigger government. They had the opportunity and blew it.

The projected surplus for the current fiscal year has gone up, of course, from $15 million plus lapses to $30 million of actual lapses, and could likely move higher to $45 million. Now, what does that mean? Do we continue to get increases from Ottawa?

If we have a surplus of $45 million and all our projects are cancelled across the Yukon, or cancelled outside Whitehorse anyway, we could end up with a $100-million surplus. Then what would the government do? They'd be in trouble, because they don't know how to spend wisely and properly and spend to benefit Yukoners. They don't know how to do it and they have proven it here with this supplementary budget.

Now, they had a $20-million increase to the federal grant, which of course is going to be carried on into the future with at least a three-and-a-half percent to four-percent increase every year afterwards. Revenues, of course, are expected to climb, particularly revenues from the Kotaneelee project in southeast Yukon because of the increase in gas prices, and we're going to have that.

And, of course, these two wells are producing a lot more than the average wells are producing in Alberta. But, of course, the local revenues are expected to drop next year and to remain, basically, level. And according to the Premier - the Finance minister - she's expecting the local economy to rebound over the next few years. But according to the figures that she provided in this supplementary, the total revenues in 2003-04 are dropping, and they drop after next year, from $80 million to $74 million. And these aren't just numbers thrown out there. How did you arrive at $74 million, two consecutive years in a row, and then go up $1 million to $75 million? They must have very, very close calculations to do that.

I would think that, in any projection, that would have remained the same right across the board. But it went up in that final year, so the revenues jumped up in the final year, even though they're going down. And we have increased spending every year, higher than it has ever been, to 2003-04, with less revenues.

We have less revenue, a smaller deficit - well, that's nice to see a small number in there, as far as the deficit goes. Also, when it comes to surplus, here we have $64 million in surplus, and what we have done in the NDP is to make sure that we have at least $20 million in surplus to take care of emergencies, whether they're floods or fires or whatever. There's at least that $20 million there in the kitty all the time.

According to the Liberals' projections, in the years 2003 and 2004, we're right down to $12.5 million, and that's low, Mr. Speaker, very low. But that's their long-term projection, and that's what they see as far as a brighter future for the Yukon in four years. That's what they see: smaller surplus, smaller revenue and increased government spending.

Well, they're going to have to do that, Mr. Speaker, because, with this supplementary budget, it's already making government grow by 6.4 percent. With the bigger budget, it sits around 1 percent or 1.5 percent. Already we've seen it jump that high.

Mr. Speaker, the time being around 3:45 p.m. and pursuant to the agreement of the House leaders, debate should be now adjourned and the House move into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of having witnesses appear. I move that the debate be now adjourned.

Speaker: It has been moved by the leader of the official opposition that the debate be now adjourned.

Debate on second reading of Bill No. 3 accordingly adjourned

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

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

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair: I'll now call Committee of the Whole to order. Do members wish to take a brief recess until 4:00 p.m., at which time the witnesses from the Yukon Development Corporation will appear before the Committee, pursuant to Committee of the Whole Motion No. 1?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

Committee will now be dealing with the Yukon Development Corporation. I would remind all members to refer their remarks through the Chair.

Witnesses introduced

Hon. Ms. Duncan: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce the chair of the Yukon Development Corporation, Mr. Ray Wells, and the president of the Yukon Development Corporation, Mr. Rob McWilliam.

Mr. Wells, as chair, is also a member of the private sector in the Yukon. He does a challenging task, as a contribution of his public service, to Yukoners, serving as chair of the Yukon Development Corporation, and we appreciate his time. Mr. Rob McWilliam is president of the corporation. Neither of these individuals are strangers to this House, and it's a pleasure to welcome them back.

Earlier today, Mr. Chair, I announced that, during this term, our government will be bringing forward legislation to amend the Yukon Development Corporation Act and that our amendments would establish mechanisms for the accountability of Yukon Development Corporation to the House, to government, to the Legislature and to the public. It also clarifies the accountability of the minister to the House and to the public.

The appearance of witnesses today is one of the items that I certainly appreciated as a member of the opposition, and I'm proud to introduce them as the minister responsible today and also to reinforce our commitment that, as part of the legislative changes, we would be requiring the appearance of these individuals, as this is a very opportune time for members to pose questions of these individuals. I believe Mr. Wells is going to introduce some of the discussion with a brief statement to members of the House.

Mr. Wells: Mr. McWilliam and I are appearing on behalf of Yukon Development Corporation. We will attempt to address general questions you may have on our subsidiary, the Yukon Energy Corporation.

This is the fourth year that Yukon Development Corporation has appeared before you. In preparing this year, I was struck with the fact that for the first time we are not dealing with coping with the closure of the Faro mine, or preparing for direct management on a six-month transition, the fire damage at the Whitehorse Rapids hydro plant, the Y2K bug, or any other crisis that the corporation had to deal with over the past four years.

Instead, we're here to talk about the progress that the corporations have made toward achieving many of the goals that we could only identify previously.

In previous appearances, we had talked about our three-year transition plan for direct management. We are almost through the third year and have accomplished most of those transition objectives so that YEC can turn its full attention to addressing operational issues.

There are still those who question the decision to go to direct management, but I would point out that, while YEC has maintained or improved upon performance indicators such as safety and reliability, it has also been able to absorb all of the inflationary pressures and to deal with extraordinary events, like preparing to address the Y2K problem, without having to go back to the Yukon Utilities Board for general rate application.

When we appeared before you last December, I raised a number of issues in my opening remarks. I indicated that we were addressing the issue of corporate governance, developing a long-term infrastructure plan that would guide future investment, and we were looking at ways to close the gap created by the loss of the revenues at the Faro mine.

I indicated at that time that we were examining the Mayo-Dawson transmission line as a major component of our efforts to reduce the costs and increase revenues. Today, I would like to focus primarily on these issues.

In dealing with governance, I would note the minister has just issued a ministerial statement on the subject. The board of directors of the Yukon Development Corporation will be meeting with her on November 30, 2000, to set out a realistic process and a schedule to implement a new governance structure.

While the final timing for legislation to enshrine that structure is obviously a matter that will be discussed with the board, I can say that there has already been considerable work done to clarify the relationship between the government, the Yukon Development