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.

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Pursuant to the Historic Resources Act, I have for tabling the Yukon Heritage Resources Board 1999-2000 annual report.

Pursuant to the Historic Resources Act, I have for tabling the Yukon Geographic Place Names Board 1998-99 annual report.

Speaker: Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Premier, in view of her oft repeated statement about the settlement of land claims being the top priority of the Liberal government and having been the minister responsible for land claims for the last seven months, should take the initiative to become properly briefed on all outstanding land claims and related matters.

Speaker: Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fairclough: I have a question for the Premier about this government's travel policies. Yesterday, the minister responsible for Yukon Housing Corporation admitted that he had spent over $12,000 of taxpayers' money on one coast-to-coast trip with his executive assistant. When did the Premier learn that this trip would exceed the minister's entire travel budget for the year, and what did she do to prevent it?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for Yukon Housing Corporation and Government Services travelled in a number of capacities this summer. The expenditures that were made in covering the cost of that trip were no more than what the previous government spent on various trips, including trips by the former Minister of Health and his executive assistant to Iqaluit.

Mr. Speaker, the real issue for the members opposite and the real difficulty they're having with this government's travel is that this government's travel has produced results - $20 million in health care spending. We have aggressively promoted the Alaska Highway pipeline project during our travels, and that has shown results with the Foothills office opening. We brought a new research facility on climate change, and we're hosting the first-ever agricultural ministers' conference in the Yukon next year - not to mention the 2,200 additional charter seats as a result of this government's travel.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the Premier didn't answer the question and I ask her to pay attention to the question and provide us with answers. This is about sound fiscal management and, when it comes to travel, there isn't any with this government.

If the Premier and her ministers stayed within their budget, that would be one thing, but they don't. In this government's first five months alone, the Premier herself was more than $20,000 overbudget on outside travel, and there has been lots more air time logged that we haven't seen details of yet.

Taxpayers want to know what are the policies and where are the controls? Who authorizes ministerial travel for this government? Is it the Management Board or does the Premier do it herself?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows very well what the government policy is for signing off on ministerial travel, just as he knows about the ministerial travel in excess of $4,500 for one trip to just three cities in western Canada by the former Minister of Tourism alone.

Mr. Speaker, this government's travel has shown very clear, very measurable results. Again, I remind the member opposite that there is $20 million in additional health care spending. There is the first-ever agricultural ministers conference to be hosted in the Yukon. There's a centre for climate change at Yukon College, as a result of the work during that specific trip and direct conversations with Minister Nault. There was work at the CMHC conference, as well as work with the British Columbia government in dealing with housing issues. There have been results from every single dime this government has spent.

Mr. Fairclough: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking questions that the general public is asking me to ask. The Premier hasn't answered the question: who authorizes the travel? Does she or the Management Board authorize it?

Even the budget-setting process under this government doesn't make sense. The Housing Corporation minister has outside travel of $10,000 for the year. The Health minister had $7,500. Where is the logic to that? It seems that the budget figures don't matter anyway. Just like the Premier, both these ministers managed to blow their budgets in only five months. Maybe that is why the Health minister skipped an important ministerial meeting to go kayaking.

Does the Premier plan to impose a travel freeze for the rest of this fiscal year, or does she expect departments to take up more and more of the slack for those high-flying politicians and their political staff?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the NDP cannot make up their minds on this issue, like so many other issues.

On June 12, the Member for Watson Lake criticized me soundly in this House for not attending a pipeline conference in Calgary. Yet, who are the first people out the door, helping us to welcome Foothills and the work we did in lobbying them to reopen their office? Who were the first people there?

They cannot make up their minds on the pipeline issue, they cannot make up their minds on travel, and they cannot make up their minds on so many things.

The government policy in situations of travel is authorized by me, in my responsibility for Cabinet. Management Board authorizes international travel. The member opposite knows that policy very well. He's just using yet another opportunity to throw mud around the Legislature and see if it sticks. It's not going to. That kind of personal smear is not going to stick.

This government has shown results for the travel, and we will continue to show results in the remaining term of our office.

Question re: Ministerial travel

Mr. Fairclough: That question was about good fiscal management and the Premier authorizing departments to go overbudget on their travel. That's what we're getting at, Mr. Speaker.

I have another question for the same minister. Earlier this fall, the Premier provided a full list of travel for all ministers, MLAs and political staff for the first five months of this government's term. I also asked her to identify all sources of funding for that travel. We already know that the list she provided was not complete with respect to one trip. Is the Premier aware of any other omissions from that list?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any other omissions from that list, and I have reviewed it. The member opposite should be well-advised that I did answer the question fully. It's about sound fiscal management, and sound fiscal management means having results to show for dollars expended. Those are just some of the results that we have to show - $20 million in health care, an agricultural ministers conference being hosted in Yukon for the first time, results in housing, results in terms of our pipeline and oil and gas lobbying. We have results to show for what we have done, unlike the previous government and their trips to the Sakha Republic, Irkutsk and a few other far-flung places.

Mr. Fairclough: Well, Mr. Speaker, where are the results? What can the minister show? Nothing. It's not here. It's all about the future.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my next question will jog the Premier's memory a little. Can the Premier confirm that the Member for Whitehorse Centre represented the Yukon government at a function in France earlier this year, and can she tell us who paid for that trip?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Whitehorse Centre was invited to work with l'Association des franco-yukonnais, and I apologize to the francophone association for my pronunciation. It's not as good as I would like it to be. That travel was paid for by the Government of Canada.

Mr. Fairclough: When the Premier provides us with an update of this revised list of travel in the near future, I hope the information on this particular one would be included. It does seem strange that a community group, though, would pay for an MLA to represent the Yukon government, when students on the same trip had to do their own fundraising, Mr. Speaker.

To the Premier's knowledge, did the MLA conduct any government-related business while he was on that trip and will she provide records of any items charged to the government, such as long-distance telephone calls?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Oh, for heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker. I stood on my feet and told the member opposite that that particular expenditure was paid for by the Government of Canada. It fascinates me that the member opposite received this answer on October 20. What took them so long to ask these questions? What took them so long, Mr. Speaker, is that they don't want to hear about the results of the work that we have been doing in our travel.

What have we been doing? Lobbying for additional health care funding; lobbying to have Foothills reopen their office; lobbying for an agricultural ministers conference; lobbying for northern economic development strategy; working with other partners throughout the country to deal with the very real issue of homelessness in this country.

Not only are we representing the Yukon government and Yukoners, wherever we go in whatever we do, but, Mr. Speaker, I would attest that we're representing them well and we're producing results.

Question re: Parks in southeast Yukon, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society proposal

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question for the Premier.

Now, southeast Yukon has an abundance of resources. We have forestry. We have oil and gas. We have mineral deposits. Yet, because of the policies of Liberal governments both here and in Ottawa, it is currently an economically depressed area of Yukon. One of the most popular items for sale at the local auto parts store are trailer hitches, as Yukoners pack up their belongings and head to jurisdictions where there are more progressive governments.

Now, if things weren't bad enough, the situation in southeast Yukon is probably going to become even more economically depressed. I have for tabling a map that shows the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society protection plans for southeast Yukon. CPAWS appears to blanket approximately 50 percent of that area with more parks. In view of the fact that the Premier and her Liberal colleague supported CPAWS' position on the Tombstone Park, supported CPAWS' position on Fishing Branch Park and the new Asi Keyi Park, do the Liberals support CPAWS' plans for southeast Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should focus his questions. This government is working on a number of areas in the economy. We are working toward rebuilding the Yukon economy in any of a number of initiatives that I've already pointed out, and that includes working with the community of Watson Lake and other communities. In terms of working with groups throughout the territory, we, of course, are listening to what individuals have to say, because we are listening to what Yukoners have to say. We communicate. Communication is a two-way street. And we consult, and we work with people.

Does the member want to ask about the Yukon protected areas strategy? Does the member want to ask about progress in land claims negotiations? Does the member want to ask about rebuilding the Yukon economy? What exactly is the member looking for?

Mr. Jenkins: In case the minister didn't understand, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister the Liberals supported CPAWS' plan for southeast Yukon. She wandered all over the map. She's listening, she's lobbying, but she's not doing anything to stimulate the economy.

Now, CPAWS played an active role in the territorial election campaign, taking out more full-page ads than all three political parties put together, but they remained silent during the recent federal election about the new Asi Keyi Natural Environment Park, probably so as not to harm the chances of a Liberal candidate being elected. The conspiracy of silence grows.

Can the Premier advise the House how many representatives from CPAWS and other environmental groups have been invited to participate in the protected areas strategy review versus how many from the resource side?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite using time in Question Period to publicly smear the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society is reprehensible. It really is.

The point is that this government is, yes, working on the Yukon protected areas strategy. Are we working with Yukoners? Yes, we are. That's our job. That's what we were elected to do. We campaigned and committed to Yukoners that we would fix the Yukon protected areas strategy, and that's exactly what we're doing. Good work, Mr. Speaker, takes time, and good work means listening to what Yukoners have to say, including Yukoners who are clearly representing one interest group. There are all sorts of Yukon people and we are listening to them.

Mr. Jenkins: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the minister has failed to answer the question. Do the Liberals here in the Yukon support CPAWS' plans for southeast Yukon and the withdrawal of massive tracts of land for parks? Do they support that position?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Yukon has its own initiatives. We are working on those initiatives that represent Yukoners, and we are representative of all Yukoners, and we listen to them.

Question re: Argus Properties, payment for work on mall site

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier with regard to the Argus issue.

The beat goes on for this self-proclaimed open and accountable government. Once again, we get one story in this House and another story through the media.

Yesterday, there were media reports quoting the Mayor of the City of Whitehorse saying that the Yukon government ordered the city to pay invoices from Argus properties for work done on the proposed mall site and Two Mile Hill. Does the Premier have any reason to believe that the mayor is not telling the truth?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question from the Member for Watson Lake, I want to thank him, because yesterday he so aptly pointed out to the Yukon public that it was the Government of Yukon's work that has avoided the lawsuit on this particular issue. I want to thank the member opposite for those kudos. We don't often get them from across the floor.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have, as a government and as a party to the agreement - which the member opposite professes to have read; however, I would challenge that - the authority to order the city to pay Argus. We agreed with the city that the city should issue payments to Argus under the terms of the contract.

We are confident that the conditions that needed to be met were met before payment was issued. That's what we were asked and that's how we responded. There's no ordering of anyone.

Mr. Fentie: Well, I wouldn't be so quick, if I were the Premier, to pat myself on the back for blowing $700,000 of taxpayers' money on something that it wasn't intended to be spent on.

In the same article, an official from Economic Development said that what the mayor had said was not the case. We are trying to ascertain what the real story is. The day before, in a different newspaper article, the Cabinet spin doctor said that the timing of payments from the city to Argus had absolutely nothing to do with the Premier's chief of staff's meeting with Argus on September 11. Why won't the Premier just come out and tell us the whole story and let the Yukon people judge for themselves?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do that. The whole story is contained in the agreement that the former government negotiated and that the member opposite professes to have read - and clearly hasn't. Yesterday, he stood on his feet and said that "off-site infrastructure" was in the definitions. If you read the agreement, it clearly is not.

The members opposite know that the former government negotiated this agreement. Mayor Bourassa, Argus and I are all trying to see this agreement successfully concluded, as opposed to have it end in a lawsuit. That's what any reasonable-thinking Yukoner would like to see happen.

Mr. Fentie: Well, that's strange because last week we asked the Premier that very question, and she denied it. She denied that she sent anybody down to meet with Argus to avoid and avert a lawsuit. The Premier is not remembering very well what she says on the floor of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, we also know that the Premier wrote to both Argus and the City of Whitehorse, urging them to settle their differences. Will the Premier at least make a commitment to provide those letters to us by the end of today?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to see that particular piece of correspondence, provided it's acceptable to the two other parties, I don't have any difficulty with that, because it says exactly what both this government and I have said all along. We didn't negotiate this deal, but we are going to live up to it. We are going to see it successfully concluded. We don't want to see another Taga Ku. That's not difficult for members of the public to understand. I don't know why it's so difficult for the Member for Watson Lake. It's very straightforward and simple. This government is doing its best to ensure that this agreement, which we didn't negotiate, is concluded. We're trying to manage this NDP deal.

Question re: Argus Properties, payment for work on mall site

Mr. Fentie: Well, in the Premier's comment about trying to manage an NDP deal, it's quite evident that the Liberal government isn't managing it very well at all, given the expenditure.

Yesterday, the Premier said that the so-called agreement, which she keeps falling back on, you could drive a truck through. Well, we know that hundreds of trucks drove through it, thanks to this Liberal government. Hundreds of loads of gravel were hauled on to private property and this Liberal government put forward $700,000 of taxpayers' money for that very expenditure, not for what the money was intended, in municipal off-site infrastructure. Why did the Premier then intervene on behalf of the developer rather than honouring the terms of the contract?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: What's becoming clearly evident to everyone, is that the member opposite hasn't read the agreement and doesn't know the agreement inside out. The real issue here - again and again and again and again I need to state this on the floor of the Legislature because the members opposite don't have any new questions - is that the Argus agreement was not negotiated by us. The fact that you can drive a truck through some of the terms of this agreement isn't my fault. It's not something that we, as a government, negotiated. The previous government negotiated this. We want to see it successfully concluded. That's what we're doing as a government and that's what we were asked to do by the voters of the Yukon on April 17.

Mr. Fentie: Well, that's contrary to the Premier's own colleague, the Member for Whitehorse Centre. Those aren't the claims he made. It's not what Yukoners want.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this government has just spent $700,000, of taxpayers' money, which was intended for such things as water and sewer. There's not even a porta-potty out there. All there is, is a level piece of property. This government also stated that all businesses are to be treated equally, so who's next to receive a nice little cheque from the government? Why didn't this Liberal government honour the agreement and tell Argus to pay those invoices, as they should have? Mr. Speaker, what undertakings did the Premier or her emissaries get from Argus that it would pay for the necessary municipal infrastructure, if the mall does eventually proceed?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, again, I advise the member: what we have done with the Argus agreement is try and see it successfully concluded. That's what Mayor Bourassa is trying to do; that's what we're trying to do. That's what governments do is try and see agreements like this - albeit we didn't negotiate them - successfully concluded. I've advised the member that the administration of this agreement rests with the City of Whitehorse and that there has been no new deal. What we're doing is managing an NDP deal. The deal was signed and sealed by the previous government. All we're trying to do is ensure that it's successfully delivered.

Mr. Fentie: Well, there's absolutely no mall; there's no water and sewer; there are no roads; there's no signage. There's a level piece of property, and it's private property. And the Liberal government is the one that authorized the expenditure of $700,000 for that private piece of property. Mr. Speaker, what room has the Premier left herself to recover this money if the mall does not proceed and Argus is in default? How is she going to recover our $700,000 that she so flippantly spent to keep herself out of court?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: My goodness, Mr. Speaker. There's a real trend here; the NDP opposite stand up and say that they don't support the pipeline; they do support the pipeline. We should travel; we shouldn't travel. We should live up to the Argus agreement we shouldn't live up to the Argus agreement. We should spend all kinds of money making sure that there's winter works, and, "No don't pay Yukon contractors who have worked and invoiced the city."

I wish the members opposite would make up their minds. For the three-hundredth time, Mr. Speaker, we are fulfilling the agreement - an agreement that was signed and sealed by the previous government. We are trying to deliver on it. The city administers the agreement, and if it would aid the members opposite, I'll see if we can't get them a copy of the agreement so that maybe they can finally sit down and read it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question re: Job creation

Mr. Fentie: Now that the Premier has brought up trends, let's talk about some trends - our jobs in this territory, jobs and the economy.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier stated that there are well over 600 jobs created this winter as a direct result of what this Liberal government is doing. Can the Premier tell us if that creation of 600 jobs is gross or net?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, honestly, they are getting desperate for questions.

The trend here is that the members opposite left Faro and Ross River out of Connect Yukon and they refused to accept responsibility. The members opposite spent $2.5 million of the $3 million of CDF money and they refuse to admit that. The members opposite negotiated the Argus deal. Now they're trying to say they had nothing to do with it and we're doing it all wrong. Talk about accountable.

When are the members opposite going to stand up and take some responsibility for asking questions that the public want asked in this Legislature? Real questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie: What kind of answer was that to the so-called 600 jobs that the Premier herself said this Liberal government has created? Let's look at the trend, Mr. Speaker. Under this Liberal watch, September 1999 to September 2000, the net decrease of jobs in this territory was 500. From October 1999 to October 2000 under this Liberal government watch, the net decrease of jobs was 300. From November 1999 to November 2000 under this Liberal government watch, the net decrease of jobs was 200.

What is this Premier really doing when it comes to creating jobs in this territory? The trend shows us that this Liberal government hasn't created 600 jobs at all. What it has done is decrease jobs in this territory and is driving people out.

Will this Premier now admit that her comment here yesterday in the Legislature was pure conjecture?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, no, I will not stand here and say that the statements I made yesterday were conjecture. What I will say is that the member would be well-advised to review the statistics he just read into the Legislature.

Let's talk about the unemployment rate for three and a half years under the NDP government. Let's talk about 1999, with an 11.9-percent unemployment rate, and 1998 with 11.5. That's in November of those years. Let's talk about April to November under the NDP government - 12.3 percent and 12.6 percent in 1998. And there are a number of other statistics. If the member opposite wants to talk about jobs in Yukon, let's talk about jobs that are in the Yukon.

Let's talk about Beaver Creek, where, yes, we proceeded with visitor reception development. Let's talk about museum assistance in Burwash Landing. Let's talk about capital maintenance and upgrades at the visitor reception centre in Carcross, operational equipment for Renewable Resources, and the renovation and rehabilitation of housing units. In Dawson City, let's talk about the number of construction projects and the number of people working there. Shall we?

There is any number of individuals working. The mayor just advised me recently of the numbers of employed individuals in Dawson City. Let's talk about Destruction Bay, Faro, Haines Junction, Keno, Marsh Lake, Mayo, Old Crow, Pelly Crossing, Ross River, Tagish, Teslin and Watson Lake and the jobs in those communities, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie:Mr. Speaker, it's so good to see the Premier stand on her feet in this House and inform us of all the jobs that were created thanks to the former government - the New Democratic government - because those jobs are a direct result of the New Democratic budget that this Liberal government brought in and passed on the floor of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, this Premier doesn't even know how to read her own statistics, because she's not informing the public about the number of people who have left the job market in this territory.

The facts are clear. Under the NDP government, there was a trend that increased jobs in this territory. It was going on, month by month. Under this Liberal government, this trend is reversed and the job market is falling through the floor. There are no jobs under this government.

Will this Premier now do the right thing, address the desperation in this territory that this Liberal government has created, bring in another supplementary, put some people to work this winter, and create real jobs - not something that is a figment of her imagination.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, my goodness, there is a quote about statistics, but the language in it is unparliamentary, so I won't use it. I'm sure members opposite are familiar with it.

First of all, they want to take credit for the budget, which this government passed, told Yukoners we'd live up to, and we're implementing. Then, the next thing I know, it's a figment of their imagination. I wish the members opposite would make up their minds.

The real desperation in this Legislature is the lack of questions from the members opposite. They really are desperate. Under the NDP government, 3,000 people left the territory - 3,000 people. We are working to rebuild the Yukon economy and bring those people back. We are doing that with capital projects in communities. We're doing that by working on major economic issues such as oil and gas, pipeline, renewable resources issues and health care issues. We are dealing with the issues that face government. And Mr. Speaker, in the eight short months we have been in office, we have made a darn good start.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We'll take a 15-minute recess.

Recess

Chair: I now call Committee of the Whole to order. Today the Committee is discussing Bill No. 35, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2.

Bill No. 35 - An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The comments that I have made in second reading and in the second reading speeches covered most aspects of this bill and, in any event, it's very simple in principle. The bill reduces taxes for all Yukon taxpayers and for the mining industry, if they conduct exploration activities. We all want competitive tax rates and a vibrant economy. The legislation will go some way to achieving that goal. It will see our personal income tax rate reduced from its present 49 percent of basic federal tax to 46 percent for the 2001 and subsequent taxation years. This will increase the disposable income of Yukon taxpayers by over $2 million per year, which is a substantial sum by anyone's measure, Mr. Chair.

The bill also extends the mineral exploration tax credit, which was scheduled to expire on March 31 of next year, for a further year, and it increases the value of that credit by three percent, from 22 percent to 25 percent.

This credit is being utilized by the industry, and I'm certain it has encouraged a number of new or expanded programs. I need not remind the members how important it is to our economy's future that expanded mineral exploration be an ongoing fact of life in the Yukon.

Mr. Chair, the passage of this bill during the current sitting will provide certainty to the mining industry as it develops exploration budgets for the coming year. In addition, Mr. Chair - this is a very important point that has often been lost from the debate - what the passage of this legislation does now is that it permits the personal income tax deduction tables distributed by the federal government on January 1 of this year to reflect the reduction in taxes.

I expect all members of the House to support these goals encompassed by the bill and look forward to their support for it. If members have any questions of a general nature, I'd be pleased to address them at this time.

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Seeing as there is no further general debate, we'll go clause by clause.

On Clause 1

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 35, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2, out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 3 - Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01 - continued

Chair: I believe we were in Community and Transportation Services, general debate. I believe that Mr. Jenkins had the floor.

Mr. Jenkins: When we left general debate yesterday afternoon on Community and Transportation Services, I was pointing out the situation with regard to the preamble of the budget that the minister presented last year. The minister went to great lengths and took great pains to explain that they were working cooperatively with the First Nations and dealing with the resolution of the land claims settlements.

It was interesting to note that the first priority of this Liberal government is the settlement of the land claims here in the Yukon.

It's also interesting to note that, other than mention made of it by the minister in the preamble, she had an undertaking that any briefings whatsoever or any understanding of the land claims were all deferred to the department, and the department was going to deal with it. As for her role in the situation, she was totally aloof. Like the Premier, Mr. Chair, she stands up and says, "Well, I probably didn't have a briefing on that. I didn't know."

But there are many other important issues within the Department of Community and Transportation Services that I'd like to raise with the minister, and if we could start with the issues surrounding the area planning committees.

Now, there are two major ones underway. There are the Marsh Lake area planning committee and the Takhini Hot Springs Road planning committee that are underway and ongoing. With respect to Marsh Lake, it appears that the process has been put in motion, and it's - if you refer to a phrase that they used in the navy - "Damn the torpedoes; full steam ahead", because it would appear that there's a great majority of the residents in the Marsh Lake area who do not support what is being proposed through the area planning committee.

It is further pointed out to me that, given the large number of individuals resident in that area, some 600, they are justifiably an entity on their own. They're larger than Carmacks, they're larger than Mayo, and probably larger than Haines Junction currently, in terms of area population. It might even be prudent to look at a town status for that area.

We have the same area planning committee looking at the Hot Springs Road and there's a great deal of controversy surrounding what the technical side of the planning committee is proposing and what the area residents understood, and what the area residents are seeking from this government. They are at cross-purposes. If one just looks back in history, we see a great deal that doesn't conform to the original arrangements, Mr. Chair, and that I find very disconcerting.

Then we look at the initiatives surrounding the municipal governments and water and sewer, and the way that this government is treating municipalities. There seems to be a double standard for the way the government involves itself. There is probably more opposition to municipal licensing coming from government than there is support.

The Department of Community and Transportation Services appears to be reluctant to go to bat for the communities and get involved in the water licences or to get involved in the process. Yet, that is not so for other territorial government departments and other federal government department, that are right there at the table, ready to take action. What we see is the Yukon Territorial Water Board making representation and the process coming off the rails when the recommendations going to the minister are not honoured, and the federal minister won't respect the decision of the Water Board here in the Yukon - just basically ignores it and goes the other way. We have examples of that currently, Mr. Chair. I find that appalling. A whole process is set up for licensing municipal water, and we have a situation like that occurring.

Mr. Chair, I further submit, with respect to water licensing, that we have more tests today and incur more costs checking the effluent discharge from municipal water supplies than we have procedures, policies and rules in place to ensure that potable water supplies are healthy. We only have to look at the Walkerton situation in Ontario, and what we have here in the Yukon with respect to testing. About the only tests that municipalities do on a daily basis is to test for the amount of chlorine.

The bacterial count is done once a month, twice a month. It's quite interesting, and the potable water supply control and monitoring is a territorial government responsibility. Why is the minister not concerned with that area, along with her colleague, the Minister of Health, to ensure that potable water supplies here in the Yukon are safe at all times?

We have had two boil-water warnings issued here in the Yukon recently - in fact, during the term of office of this Liberal government, Mr. Chair - but we haven't heard anything from the minister other than, "It's safe; don't worry, be happy." If we just recall the Walkerton experience, the same message was delivered - don't worry, be happy.

We have more federal controls over effluent discharge where we should be having the controls to ensure safety of the potable water supply here in Yukon. When are we going to see this area addressed, Mr. Chair?

Mr. Chair, we also have a lot of other safety issues on our highways and approaches to communities, and progress was made under the previous NDP government - highway lighting through various communities, such as Carmacks, Pelly Crossing and around Whitehorse - but we still need more. One of the communities that is sadly lacking in lighting is the entranceway into my community, Dawson City, and yes, there's a study underway. But I take the minister back to the traffic counts. The traffic counts in and out of Dawson City clearly indicate that the standard of highway that currently exists there is substandard. It is below the accepted standard for that volume of traffic. Plus the highway width is not anywhere near adequate, given the amount of pedestrian traffic and bicycle traffic, especially in the summertime. It doesn't get to be a problem until the light starts dimming in the evening and it gets dark out. In June, it's not a problem, but getting further into the season it becomes more and more acute.

And accidents will happen. There is not an adequate amount of highway lighting. The highway is too narrow coming out of Dawson City, for probably about the first 15 to 20 kilometres of the highway route. When is that going to be addressed?

Going into Ross River, it took an accident and took a death before street lighting was properly placed on the access to Ross River, Mr. Chair.

We get into the airport situation, Mr. Chair, which is again within the purview of the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. We went to great lengths to extend the airport runway in Whitehorse to ensure that takeoff distances were adequate. But we still haven't dealt with the obstructions on the approach. There's still a NOTAM in place. When is that going to be addressed, so the full length of the runway can be used - so that 13 right and 31 left can be used consistently for takeoffs and landings, for its entire length? When are we going to see something happen there?

I don't want the minister to stand up and blame the previous government on this issue. She now has full control of the department. It's within that Department of Community and Transportation Services, the aviation branch.

We see another glaring problem with airports in my community, once again, of Dawson City, where the airport itself, Mr. Chair, was more than adequate as long as it was owned by the federal government and operated by the federal government. Now that the transfer has taken place to the Government of Yukon, the federal government came back in with the regulatory arm and said: "You can't park here. The highway's too close. Cut down this brush. This is a safety issue." How much money is the federal government going to be putting into the airport in Dawson City to ensure that it conforms with the existing rules, which haven't changed since the airport transfer took place? There has been no change in proximity from the centre line of the runway to where you could have an obstruction.

And the Klondike Highway intersects that area. The brush intersects that area. Here we have a minister who can't even cut the brush down on the side of Yukon highways, and we're expecting her and asking her to cut down the brush around airports, Mr. Chair? Well, it was late this fall that this initiative took place, and that brush was cleared alongside the highways in a number of areas, Mr. Chair. Again, a very important safety issue.

But let's just back up to airports. We have an airport in Dawson City at which the runway's too close to the highway. The parking for aircraft is too close. We have a serious problem. Then we get into the wonderful implications of Bill C-68 and gun control legislation, where we have pilots coming in from Alaska. Number one, there's no place for them to park in Dawson City any more, and furthermore, their requirements in Alaska are that they carry a firearm in their survival gear. That's a law in that area, and each time they come into Canada, they have to acquire a $50 permit for their firearm if, indeed, it's allowed and it's legal. Otherwise, it's confiscated - indeed, the plane can be confiscated, Mr. Chair.

This wonderful Liberal initiative is doing nothing for our visitor industry. But you can't find out today whether the firearm that's part of the survival gear can be titled to the aircraft. All indications are it has to be titled to the pilot of that aircraft. So if you have an aircraft constantly chartered and coming back and forth into our community, like we have a great deal in the summertime, we have a problem. Each time that pilot comes in, if it's a different pilot, it's another set of paperwork - probably up to a two-hour delay, if everything is approved - before the $50 permit is issued. If we have a fly-in, which is not too irregular an occurrence of 20, 30, 40 aircraft - we've had up to 70 aircraft at one time - fly into our community, there isn't any place for them to park.

As well, can you imagine the paperwork if they all have survival firearms on board? Just take an hour to an hour and a half per aircraft. Well, they're ready to leave before they have even had time to get out of their aircraft. How many Customs inspections is it going to take? Thank this federal government and their colleagues here in the Yukon.

Now, these are areas that need to be addressed. I'm sure the Minister of Tourism is well aware of them, but we haven't heard anything happen. And this all starts on January 1, just a few days down the road - just a few days down the road. That's another area that must be addressed. Airports and highway safety - we haven't seen anything coming from this minister.

Let's look at the Connect Yukon initiative. Now, that's so splintered between three different departments today that we don't know where we're heading or who is in control. We have the initiative starting in Economic Development, paid for by Government Services - the debt servicing under Government Services - and the Minister of Community and Transportation Services involved in that component of the Connect Yukon initiative. We also know that the federal government, during the recent election campaign, announced a Connect Canadians initiative. Where do we plug into the scheme of things there? Has this minister taken the time, and will Yukon be receiving a refund from Canada for Connect Yukon and this $20-odd-million initiative?

I haven't heard any announcement from this minister in this regard, and it's a very important area. When the announcement was first made, Mr. Chair, the understanding of Yukoners was that those without telephone service would be receiving access to telephone. Well, Mr. Chair, nothing could be further from the truth. That simply will not happen. It will happen in some areas, but it will not happen in the Yukon in the areas that people envisioned that they would have access to telephone service.

There's going to be a tremendous amount of rural Yukon that still will not have access to a telephone. We have all heard the CRTC announcement. We have all heard the amount of money that Northwestel is going to be investing in infrastructure. It's going to be interesting, given the layer upon layer upon layer of initiatives. No one has really explained how they all dovetail, how Connect Yukon, the rural program, and Connect Canadians all fit together.

Then we come back to the initial initiative of funding Connect Yukon by borrowing. The Government of Yukon borrows the money from the immigrant investor fund, which, in the opinion of many, Mr. Chair, is illegal because the Government of Yukon is not supposed to borrow money for its own purposes or for its own areas. All the Government of Yukon did was set up a numbered company to funnel the money from the immigrant investor fund to the numbered company and then out to Northwestel. Then, after the fact, we hear that it's going to be debt serviced by Government Services. It sounds like a heck of a deal for Yukoners.

So, what it says, Mr. Chair, is that instead of the ratepayers of Northwestel paying for Connect Yukon, the taxpayers pay, but they're one and the same; they're the same people. We have the taxpayers paying through the Government of Yukon. What's the difference? It looks like a sleight of hand, one of those old games that they played in the fairs, moving the shells around and trying to guess which one contained the item. It's just a sleight of hand. On the surface it sounds good. At the end of the day, the taxpayers pay instead of the ratepayers. So much for Connect Yukon.

And will it provide upgraded service for Yukoners? For some of them, Mr. Chair, not for all of them.

It still will not provide affordable telephone service or access to telephone service - just a basic handset for many, many, many Yukoners. Anything in the area of wireless, Northwestel has divested itself of to a wholly-owned subsidiary, NMI Mobility. It sounds great, but at the end of the day, it's an arm's-length transaction; they're unregulated - the wireless end of it - and we're probably going to pay, because there's not enough room for competition in that area.

So just where does the Connect Yukon initiative plug in to the Connect Canadians initiative? I can't find out any information about that area, either, Mr. Chair. We do know that for both initiatives, it won't be the ratepayer who pays; it will be the taxpayer. But they are the same. Perhaps we could spread it over a bigger or more extended area.

And one of the other areas that the minister has not addressed and should be addressing is the recovery of money from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Yukon government acted in very good faith when there were forest fires - forest fires that the federal government rightfully fought - and during the times of forest fires that were threatening both Old Crow and Pelly, both of these communities were evacuated. The Government of the Yukon picked up those costs and subsequently billed the Government of Canada, and the Government of Canada has not paid. Why, Mr. Chair? We still have recoveries due to the Yukon for the fire in Burwash, and we are talking about a considerable sum of money when you add up all three of these areas together.

But the minister is just reading her briefing notes on this area now to bring her up to speed, Mr. Chair. These are important areas where the minister must be addressing her department's concerns and concerns of Yukoners. The money has flowed out of the coffers of the Yukon government and we were led to believe, Mr. Chair, that there was going to be a nice, warm, cozy relationship between the Liberals here in Yukon and the Liberals in Ottawa. But all it appears to be is that the new Liberal government here in the Yukon are going to act as apologists for the federal Liberal government.

It doesn't matter if we look at initiatives surrounding water licensing for municipalities, recoveries from Canada for evacuation of communities that are threatened by forest fires or any of the other many, many initiatives underway in the Yukon.

Yesterday, in general debate, we looked at the northern boundary of Yukon. We looked at the Crown-in-right issue of Yukon. All of these play a very important role in where we are in our relationship with our federal government, Mr. Chair. We can't seem to get any of these areas right. And, more often than not, we're alienating a great number of Yukoners in the process.

Mr. Chair, I think it's very, very important that the minister responsible for Community and Transportation Services not blame previous governments. All we heard in previous debate on this department was the minister blaming the previous NDP government for not adequately funding Community and Transportation Services. The minister should look within the department and the fact that this Liberal government came to power with a $64-million surplus.

A surplus of $64 million - an unheard of amount. So, the buck stops with the minister.

Hopefully we can all move forward with safer highways and safer airports - not only safer, but adequate highways and adequate airports. Our transportation system is a tool of economic development, and what it says to everyone by ignoring these areas is that we are ignoring economic development, especially in these two great areas of air transportation access and highway routes.

We can't even find out if the Minister of Community and Transportation Services has come to any arrangement with officials in the State of Alaska about the Top of the World Highway opening on time. We have a number of tour operators calling already, saying, "Can we schedule anything before the first part of June?" We can't give them a positive answer. Why? Because this minister is not doing her job. She can't find out the basic information about whether the highway is going to be open on time. It's a sad day for Yukoners.

I don't want the Minister of Community and Transportation Services to pacs the buck to the Minister of Tourism, because the whole area is primarily her responsibility - to ensure that our transportation system works.

I have put enough on the plate that the minister has a few minutes to respond. Hopefully we can get some concrete answers about where we're heading.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I have writer's cramp. I couldn't keep up with all the questions, so I'll get back to the member in writing on those, since he asked about 75 questions in there while the camera was on.

Moving on, if he has a specific question, I'd be glad to answer him.

Mr. Jenkins: Let's start at the beginning once again, Mr. Chair.

The Marsh Lake area planning committee and the Takhini Hot Springs Road planning committee - what is happening in these two planning areas?

Why is there so much opposition to what has been concluded by the planning committee with respect to Marsh Lake initially, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Can the member clarify what he means by "so much opposition" in the Marsh Lake area, please?

Mr. Jenkins: It has been brought to my attention by residents in that area that they are concerned with the way the area planning committee is proceeding and the areas that they're exploring, and where they eventually intend to end up. There obviously must be an issue there. I'm sure, in the minister's briefing notes somewhere, she has an overview of that. What is it, for the record, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The Member for Klondike is confusing planning with local governance. In May, Cabinet endorsed the establishment of the Marsh Lake local advisory area, which was an initiative generated by Marsh Lake area residents, an initiative that has widespread support from Marsh Lake area residents.

The first election of the Marsh Lake Local Advisory Council was held on October 19, and this was a community-driven initiative. There has been opposition registered by a handful of people. It is not widespread opposition.

Mr. Jenkins: I was referring to the area planning committee and what they've concluded.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: There is no planning committee in the Marsh Lake area. It is now a local advisory council. It is local governance.

Mr. Jenkins: Let's go to the Takhini Hot Springs Road, the area planning committee there. What is the opposition? And just for the record, can the minister provide us with an overview of the concerns that the people have raised in that area, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: There has been a lot of response to the Hot Springs Road planning initiative received from the community; that is a healthy thing. Residents of the Hot Springs Road area are taking an active interest in the plan and in the direction of their community.

There are a number of views held by residents. Some are opposed to any future development, while others would prefer to plan today for potential development in the future. We also know that agriculture is an important element of the Hot Springs Road community, and the planning process will accommodate the development of agricultural land uses and permit a broad range of complementary activities.

A community survey is being sent out to further gauge residents' views on the options presented. I am urging all residents of the Hot Springs Road area to participate in that survey, and I am planning to hold a public meeting out there with departmental officials to talk about the planning process and the future of that area.

Mr. Jenkins: So this healthy thing, as the minister describes - is there any deviation from the planning that has gone on previously in the area, as to what it concluded in previous plans and what we're looking at now, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, there was no previous Hot Springs Road planning process. There was zoning underway there, and a diversity of views is a healthy thing. I'm not going to pick sides and say this kind of view is right or that kind of view is right. I would like the Hot Springs Road residents to work together with the department to come to a consensus on what's best for the future of the area.

Mr. Jenkins: One of the most contentious issues in rural Yukon, specifically, has been the zoning. What I understand is going to be taking place here is a number of changes to the zoning in that area. What has given rise to these proposed changes, Mr. Chair? Because that is really what it is all about. There are going to be changes in zoning, expansion or reduction in sizes of areas, and what was previously envisioned by the residents there, and a lot of them bought under a set of rules that now appear to be in limbo and might possibly be changed.

What is driving this requirement for change in this area, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: For many years, when anybody has moved into the Hot Springs Road area, they have affected the lifestyle of the people who were previously there. That process continues. There has been a consistent demand for rural residential lots in the Whitehorse periphery, as the member is well aware.

When Pilot Mountain went in some years back, there was vocal opposition from residents already in the Hot Springs Road area. Now the Pilot Mountain people are well-established there, as well as previous Hot Springs Road residents. Of course they don't all hold the same view. No changes have been made; no decisions have been made. A community survey is going out. As I say again, I would like all residents to complete the survey. I have received correspondence from many residents of the area, and I will be holding a public meeting out there for a more full discussion on the issue.

Mr. Jenkins: Would the minister have any timelines for this meeting and the conclusion of this planning committee's report?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I had hoped to have held it already, but as the Legislature is still in session, that has been impossible.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I would point out to the minister that the Legislature only sits until 6:00 p.m., four days of the week. There are seven days in a week. This is not a nine-to-five job that the minister has, and I would suggest that there is more than ample opportunity to get herself immersed in the business of her department and successfully conclude it. In fact, I'm given to understand that one of the major reasons for doing away with evening sittings is so that the ministers would have more time to address their responsibilities. So, let's not throw that out as an excuse.

Mr. Chair, one of the other areas of concern is what the policy of the Department of Community and Transportation Services is with respect to intervening on behalf of municipalities or with respect to water licence applications.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: It may be a one-to-six job for the member opposite. It certainly is not for me.

There is no double standard with regard to water and sewer. We are working directly with the communities on water licences. We have been working with Dawson for many years and are currently working with Carmacks.

Mr. Jenkins: I would like to know the department's policy with respect to actually appearing before the Water Board. Does the Department of Community and Transportation Services have a policy of appearing before the Water Board to support water licence applications from the various communities? If they do not, why not?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The department used to do that when they were local improvement districts. Now that we have municipalities, they are quite independent and capable of speaking for themselves. They don't need the government to do that.

Mr. Jenkins: It's obvious, Mr. Chair, that the minister has never appeared before the Water Board. It's probably one of the most intimidating exercises that municipal officials can undertake, especially in light of the tremendous number of officials from other federal government agencies there, usually in opposition to water licences.

Why doesn't Community and Transportation Services have a policy of appearing before the Water Board to support community water licences?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, we certainly give municipalities all sorts of support behind the scenes, with letters, et cetera. The municipalities bring their own experts to the hearings and they represent themselves very well.

Mr. Jenkins: I submit, Mr. Chair, that it's an area that the minister should be examining and should be doing something in, given that it's a very, very extensive exercise and an extremely costly one for most municipalities to prepare and present a water licence application. Because it's not done other than on a five-year or a 10-year cycle, a lot of the expertise is usually lost within the municipal governments, in that there's a changeover of officials at the top. So I think it's very, very important that we have a consistent and uniform approach for re-licensing, and the only way that that can be ensured is if the Government of Yukon offers its support and is there at the table, making representation in support of municipal water licence renewals or applications.

Why does the minister see fit to not be there, Mr. Chair?

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins: I had a question of the minister. She's not answering. Is she not able to, or she doesn't have a clue? What's the problem?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I've already answered that question. If the member has a new question, I'd be glad to answer that.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, the question was quite simply put. There's no consistency across the Yukon Territory in elected officials and in the actual officials within the municipal governments. There's a constant change, and licensing and relicensing occurs every five to 10 years for waste water discharge. What you want to ensure is continuity, Mr. Chair. The only way to ensure that is if there's some sort of support from the Government of Yukon, Department of Community and Transportation Services, to make representation to the Water Board in support of licence applications.

It would appear, Mr. Chair, that the minister just doesn't want to be there - doesn't want her officials to be there. I find that somewhat upsetting and disconcerting, Mr. Chair, because it's an extremely painful time for municipal governments, in that it's a very costly undertaking. It's very intimidating, especially when you attend these hearings and there are a number of officials from federal agencies and conservation groups. And they're all usually there in opposition to the renewal. They're not putting out any suggestions, other than that they're in opposition and that you don't meet the standard.

The Community and Transportation Services department is supposed to be there to help municipal governments. Why isn't the department interested in supporting municipalities in their water licence applications and re-applications, Mr. Chair? Is there some reason why we're not in that area?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I don't believe there have been any municipal water licence applications since I've been the minister, for one thing. Continuity is not the issue, Mr. Chair, so much as expertise is, and the municipalities bring their own consultants who are experts in this area to the hearings. They represent themselves very well, as I've already said. We are extremely supportive of the municipalities in this area, and we support them behind the scenes very well and will continue to do so.

Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister advise the House where the rules are for potable water to ensure their safety for municipal governments? Where are those rules written down, and where is it written that municipal governments have to conform to them?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As the Member for Klondike well knows, we are extremely concerned about the safety of our water supply. There is a minimum standard for the monthly submission of water samples for all Yukon rural communities. The member must be satisfied that the water supplied in the Legislature is safe, as he's calling for more water.

Watson Lake complies with the standard. Dawson City chooses to submit samples twice a month, and all water samples are tested for total coliforms and faecal coliforms. Environmental Health and Social Services provide the lab analysis within 24 hours of submitting a sample, and as I said before in the House, Mr. Chair, Community and Transportation Services is leading a review of the demand for a local water-quality testing lab in Whitehorse, because I'm sure that's where the member's going next. We expect to have the report completed early in the new year.

Mr. Jenkins: Has the minister looked at what rules are in place for other jurisdictions? Ontario has had grave concerns raised over Walkerton and its potable water supply. Has the minister looked at what is in place in the Province of Ontario to ensure safe drinking water and what laws are there? Because really, at the end of the day, other than the requirement to pull a sample once a month, that's all we have here in the Yukon.

It is up to the municipal government to ensure that that water supply is safe, but there is no stipulation that it has to really do anything, other than pull a sample once a month and send it in for analysis. If they choose to pull it in twice a month, or three times a month - Mr. Chair, look at the test for chlorine, which is done once or twice a day, depending on which system you look at. That is the only test that takes place, but if you have a waterline that lays dormant with nothing being drawn out of that waterline for quite a period of time, the level of chlorine dissipates down to zero. The bacterial count, if there is any there, grows, depending if the ambient temperature of that water supply increases. We could very well have a problem. If you test once a month, you could pull a sample and if that line were flushed a couple of days later, you would get very safe, potable water out of that line. You wouldn't even know that you had a problem.

What I'm asking the minister to consider, Mr. Chair, is the health and safety of Yukoners, and conduct a review of this area. We probably spend more time ensuring that we have safe, potable water than we currently spend to ensure that we have discharge that conforms to a standard. The requirements for discharge water are federal requirements, and the cost of implementation of those federal requirements for any municipal government far exceeds any of the costs that we incur for testing to ensure that we have a safe, potable water supply.

I believe that there is a grave injustice being done in this regard, Mr. Chair, and I believe we are leaving the door open for potential health problems. I believe it is an area that the minister should be examining very, very closely and putting in place a policy, initially, and then a program. That program should be coupled with a lab for testing purposes to ensure the ongoing safety of our potable water supply.

The minister made mention of examining a lab and seeing if something could be done.

There are two areas that have to be looked at, Mr. Chair. One area is the testing of discharge water and the potential for a lab here in the Yukon to meet those testing requirements, and the other area is the potable water supply and the safety of that potable water supply. So the former Chair of the Yukon Territorial Water Board is offering advice to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services on this very important issue, so we can probably hear some very beneficial remarks.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I'm glad the Member for Klondike shares my concern about the safety of our water. I have already indicated that we are looking at issues around a local water quality testing lab. The frequency of testing is also being looked at. That frequency of testing is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Services. So, the member can address any further questions down that line to the Minister of Health when we resume debate on that area of the budget.

Mr. Jenkins: Here we go again. The minister is passing the buck - if it's not her officials, it's some other minister.

But the area of concern is to ensure safe potable water. In most jurisdictions in Canada, yes, the testing is a health matter, but the regulations fall under Community and Transportation Services, or a similar body. In some cases, they do come under Health, but by and large, the government department or agency responsible for communities has the regulations in place. The standards are developed by the Department of Health. That is the situation in Ontario, and I would urge the minister to consider the implementation of a program of more frequent testing of potable water supplies than once a month, as is done in the Yukon. We are on a collision road with potential problems.

One of the other areas that the minister is responsible for that I'd like to explore with her are airports. I heard her mention that she wasn't going to look at widening the Whitehorse airport, which is required. We're right at the minimum width for wide-bodied jets. The recommended width for a runway - depending on the operating procedures of the airline that you're hoping to attract into the area, the width of the runway could be too narrow.

Has this area been examined with a view to widening the main airport runway - 13 right, 31 left, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As I said yesterday, there are no plans to widen the runway.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it being looked at, examined or costed out? I know we could probably use the work for the paving companies, but is it being looked at, Mr. Chair? Is it even being examined or considered? One only has to refer to the Whitehorse airport study and the number of conclusions in that study. It's probably going to occur in the not-too-distant future that one of the airlines that we're inviting to fly into Whitehorse will not come into this airport, because they are wide-body equipment and their operating rules do not permit them. That's going to be the problem we're going to incur.

Is it being examined, looked at or costed out, so we know where we're at, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I have already answered that question. If the member has a new question, I'd be glad to hear it.

Mr. Jenkins: But the minister said she had no plans to widen the airport. I asked if it is being examined and costed out? Yes or no? We'll keep it simple for the minister, Mr. Chair.

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins: The minister needs some help over there. She has fallen asleep at the switch, Mr. Chair. She has got her head in her hands and her pencil I don't know where, and we just can't seem to get any answers from this minister.

Mr. Chair, a simple question for the minister. A yes or no. Has the widening of the main runway at the Whitehorse Airport been costed out? Yes or no?

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins: Same question, same minister.

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins: Same question, same minister, Mr. Chair. Has the widening of the Whitehorse Airport been costed out? Yes or no?

Well, let the record reflect, Mr. Chair, that either the minister is incapable of answering or doesn't know the answer. So can I have a written response to the question, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: You'll find the written response in Hansard.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, there is no written response in Hansard as to what the cost of the widening of the Whitehorse Airport would be. That's the number I'm looking for. Has it been costed out and what is that cost? Does the minister not have that information?

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins: Well, we have a stubborn one here today, Mr. Chair. Incompetent or incapable - which one is it, Mr. Chair?

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Chair, it's obvious that we can't get an answer out of this minister. Is she going to be tendering her resignation as Minister of Community and Transportation Services?

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins: I guess the minister isn't scripted in her response, Mr. Chair, so she can't answer. I guess we can move on to the Dawson City Airport.

How much money is the federal government coming to the party with to upgrade this airport to meet the standards that they're requiring?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I am waiting to hear from Transport Canada on our application for upgrading the Dawson Airport. The application was submitted some time ago.

Mr. Jenkins: And what is the amount of money that the minister is requesting in her application?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: We requested between $4.7 million and $5.2 million.

Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister explain how you request between a range of $4.7 million and $5.2 million? I thought the minister would be specific as to what her request would be.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I believe the specific request was $5 million. As I said, I'm waiting to hear from them with their response, whether they're giving us any or the full amount.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, what the minister said is that the request from the Government of the Yukon was between $4.7 million and $5.2 million; now she's saying that the request was for $5 million. Just where are we at? What was the actual, documented request to the federal government for the upgrading of the Dawson Airport, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I don't have the document in front of me. My deputy advises me that it was a request of $5 million.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, it's my understanding that the minister is responsible for Community and Transportation Services, and if we can't do better than the answers that are forthcoming here today, Mr. Chair, it's pretty sad. I can understand why the highways are going into a deplorable state. The minister doesn't even bear any resemblance to her responsibilities or any knowledge of her responsibilities.

And I can understand why there's such a vagueness in her responses, Mr. Chair. It's because the minister doesn't know.

Now, I urge her to pay more attention to her officials when she's being briefed, because I know that her officials are providing her with excellent information in a timely fashion. It's up to the minister to grasp the fundamentals of her responsibilities and understand them, especially the financial implications.

I would like to ask the minister to elaborate on this $5-million request of the federal government for the upgrading of the Dawson Airport. Just what will it involve? What areas will be dealt with, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: When it comes to dealing with the member opposite, if he asked me the time, I'd want to refer to briefing notes - just to be sure.

We asked Transport Canada for money to complete some safety and operational enhancements, which include reconstructing the gravel runway, expansion of the apron, and paving of the apron and taxiway.

Mr. Jenkins: What about the plans to relocate the Klondike Highway? Is there going to be a variance granted by Transport Canada to permit the Klondike Highway to remain in the runway right-of-way?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Transport Canada is currently looking at our proposal. We haven't heard about the funding. We are awaiting their reply.

Mr. Jenkins: I wasn't referring to the funding and the reply. I was referring to the regulations and the proximity of the Klondike Highway to the centre line of the Dawson Airport. Now, the highway intersects into an area that is too close to the centre line of the runway for the class of aircraft that this is licensed to allow to land and take off there.

What provisions are being made for that? Is Transport Canada going to allow a variance or is the highway going to be moved or is the runway going to be moved?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Transport Canada's regional officer has completed a detailed review of the proposed project and has indicated that it's in the Ottawa office with a recommendation for approval. We are waiting for that. The question the member is asking will no doubt be contained in that reply.

Mr. Jenkins: Perhaps it would be prudent if the minister sent over a copy of the request to Transport Canada for the proposal for the $5 million. We could have a look at it and ask some questions in the next session as to where we're going, Mr. Chair. Will the minister provide a copy of the request, please?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: No, Mr. Chair, I will not.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, let's look at these issues. Is part of the proposal to Transport Canada a request for a variance to allow the highway to remain where it is? Yes or no?

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, I don't know whether we have a minister who doesn't understand her portfolio or is incapable of explaining it. It was a very simple question, and it deals with the proximity of the airport to the highway, or the proximity of the highway to the airport. All I'm asking the minister to explain is, with respect to the Dawson Airport, has the Government of Yukon asked for a variance, so that the Klondike Highway can remain where it is? Have they asked for a variance from Transport Canada? Yes or no?

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins: Is the main runway going to be paved in Dawson? Yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, that was not part of the current application. Paving the runway is not eligible at this time for airports capital assistance program funding. The Yukon government and other airport operators are lobbying Transport Canada to expand the ACAP criteria.

Mr. Jenkins: One of the impediments to increasing the use of the airport in Dawson City is the fact that it's not paved. Many, many insurance carriers for wheeled aircraft will not permit their aircraft to operate on a gravel strip. It has to be a paved strip. The runway surface in Dawson is gravel and it's acting as an impediment, not as a tool of economic development.

It was an area that was reviewed by Dawson. It was agreed to by the territorial government previously. In fact, there were people who were suggesting that it was going to occur imminently, as early as a year or so ago. Where are we at with this initiative, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I have already told the member that paving the runway is not currently eligible for ACAP funding. Other impediments at that airport include the hills around it, which prevent it from being a 24-hour airport.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, the airport is a 24-hour airport for about two months of the year, Mr. Chair. What the minister means to say is that it has to be VFR flight regulations that apply to that airport. So, as far as the airport being a 24-hour airport, it is that way currently, Mr. Chair. But, that's not the issue. The issue is how the airport is, in Transport Canada's terms of reference, currently illegal in many respects. How many of these illegal areas are going to be addressed by the Government of Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Hard surfacing the runway is a high priority for this government, after the safety and certification issues have been addressed. The current application is to deal with the safety and certification issues. So we will deal with those first.

Mr. Jenkins: What the minister is saying is that the Government of the Yukon took over responsibility for the Dawson City Airport, knowing full well that it wasn't safe, knowing full well that it didn't comply with Transport Canada regulations, and now it is going to cost approximately $5 million to bring it into compliance, and that is if the federal government advances those funds to the Yukon government.

The use of an airport is a very high priority. Given that the Minister of Health and Social Services has created a two-tier health care system in the Yukon, we have to get medevac planes in and out of Dawson on a regular basis. So there is a problem there. They fly in 24 hours a day, seven days a week, irrespective of Transport Canada regulations; they fly under a different category.

With respect to the airport itself, on how many different points is it not conforming to Transport Canada's regulations?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I am aware that if we were starting again with a brand new airport in that location, we would never get certification because of the hills. That is the major point.

There is certification at this point, and we are working on improving that with the improvements that we have asked Transport Canada for funding for.

Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister advise the House: in how many areas is the airport in Dawson City not conforming to federal regulations? How many areas?

Now, we've got to the hills; we've got the highways. In how many areas does it not conform?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I don't have the exact number and the details with me. I'll be pleased to provide them to the member, although I know he already knows the answer.

Mr. Jenkins: I'm glad somebody in this House knows the answers. Mr. Chair, I'll look forward to receiving that information in due course.

While we're on airports, is there any move afoot to decommission the ARCALS in Ross River and Dawson?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: No, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: There are going to be some changes with the operation of the CARS stations in rural Yukon, Mr. Chair. Some of the advisory services provided by CARS are some of the best in the north, here in the Yukon, and the changes will see everything operated on RCOs out of Whitehorse. Now, there are some positive aspects to that, and there are some negative aspects to that. Can the minister just elaborate as to how her officials see this initiative, and is there indeed a safety factor in the transition to this new procedure, and will we see the same amount of service provided by Nav Canada through their respective agencies?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The CARS systems are going to stay essentially the same as they are now. If anything, we'll have an increase in service, thanks to the RCOs.

Mr. Jenkins: The minister might want to read the current directive on CARS about what's changing, because considerable changes are coming after the beginning of this year. I am concerned with the direction we are heading, as are a lot of individuals in the aviation business. It's quite interesting, Mr. Chair. It's quite interesting, indeed.

Are there any other areas with respect to airport operations in which we can see a reduction - or are anticipating a reduction - in funding from the federal government?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: No, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: With respect to the added requirement for Customs at the airport, specifically in Dawson and moreso in Whitehorse, what changes are going to be made to the terminals, and what changes have been made to the terminals, at what cost, to accommodate the influx of passengers?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I'll be delighted to provide the member with that information.

Mr. Jenkins: Do we envision any improvement in moving people through Customs?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I'll be delighted to provide the member with that information.

Mr. Jenkins: One of the other problems we have in our community is the scheduled carrier, Air North, which provides excellent service throughout the Yukon, Mr. Chair. It originates out of Whitehorse, leaving Whitehorse in the morning and goes to Dawson City. Every day, it goes up to Old Crow and some days on to Inuvik, other days over to Fairbanks, then back to Dawson and back to Whitehorse. We have difficulty with the way Canada Customs treats passengers embarking in Old Crow or in Inuvik, should it go to Fairbanks, in that in Fairbanks, the plane lands. Other than deplaning passengers, all of the passengers who embark in Old Crow and Inuvik must remain on the aircraft. They can't disembark. And when they arrive in Dawson, Customs insists that they clear Customs.

This has been brought to the department's attention. What kind of action is the department taking?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: That's the first I have heard of this difficulty. I thank the member for bringing it to my attention.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, we're not going to get anywhere on airport policies or problems because the minister doesn't really understand her portfolio, Mr. Chair, and has a lack of comprehension of how to provide answers.

Let's look at some of the fire halls. Burwash - what is going to be the final capital cost of the completion of a fire hall in Burwash? What are we looking at in total, adding up all of the costs that we have incurred? What is it?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I don't have that figure at my fingertips. I'd be glad to attempt to find it for the member.

Mr. Jenkins: What is the department doing to monitor it? Currently, there is another amount of money - I believe that it is $121,000 - just to fix up around the building now. When we add it all up, the total cost of the replacement of that fire hall, including the remedial repairs after it froze up and everything else, such as the rental of the second fire hall for the interim period - it is just classified under capital expenditure, EMO, special projects, Burwash fire remediation, $121,000. I know that applies to the community cleanup after the fire, but there was also the fire hall. There was a lot of cleanup and other costs that were incurred around there. What was the final figure for that fire hall?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The fire hall itself was completed over a year ago. I believe that figure is in previous budgets.

Mr. Jenkins: Not only was it in one previous budget, it was in two previous budgets - it carried over. There was also money spent on it last year. All I am looking for is for the minister to provide the total costs over all of the budget cycles, because it looks like it was spread over three, possibly four, budgets.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I have already said that I will get that figure for the member.

Mr. Jenkins: Let's look at highways and lighting, Mr. Chair.

Now, we've lit the way into Ross River and that is appreciated. We have lit the way across the bridge in Carmacks and on the highway coming and going out of Carmacks. We have lit the way through Pelly Crossing. We have lit the way down south through Teslin and a few other initiatives. They are all very positive initiatives, Mr. Chair. What is the timeline for the lighting from, say, Henderson's Corner into Dawson City? This is an extremely highly travelled section of the highway. When is this going to take place? Because what we have is a study after a study after the numbers were assembled. Is this going to be in the next budget cycle?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Now he wants to extend it all the way to Henderson's Corner.

Mr. Chair, we're not going to install lighting from Callison into Dawson now, and rip it up when we're widening the highway. That would be foolish.

Mr. Jenkins: So, should I take that as a commitment that the widening of the highway is in the next budget cycle, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As the member is well aware, we are in the planning process for the next budget cycle at the moment. If the member has questions related to this budget, I'd be happy to answer them.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, perhaps the minister can share with us the design work that has already taken place in the previous budget for the expenditure. I believe it was some $50,000 worth of expenditure. Is that design available, and can the minister just provide us with a copy, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The design work is almost complete, and planning on the budget continues. Should it be in the budget, then we will be having a public meeting in Dawson to discuss it.

Mr. Jenkins: Is there going to be any plan made available to the Legislature before this public meeting, or is it just going to be a deep, dark secret?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Well, considering the distinct possibility that the Legislature will still be sitting when the budget planning is completed, there's a possibility.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I'm back in Dawson every weekend, Mr. Chair. If the minister wants, I would be happy to take the plans back on her behalf and ensure that they're delivered to the appropriate individuals in the community. Not that I want to act on her behalf, Mr. Chair. I wouldn't want that to remove the tremendous understanding I have with the department to get down to that point, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, could the minister provide the traffic counts - there are traffic counters at quite a number of locations throughout the Yukon, and the records are compiled on a continuing basis, and usually on a monthly basis. They are added up for the total year. I'd like to ask the minister to provide to the House the vehicle counts on our principal highways for - let's just go back three or four years. Could the minister provide that? It's readily available, Mr. Chair. It's readily available.

What I need the information for is to show the tremendous downturn in the economy, to show the tremendous reduction in vehicle traffic on our highways. I'm just looking at it, and I'm also looking at it to show what the increase in vehicle traffic has been in close proximity to Dawson. Because there are three vehicle counters in close proximity to Dawson, and there are a couple out by the Dempster Corner, and there's another set by Stewart Crossing.

So, there are quite a number of vehicle counters in our area, and this information is very, very valuable information. It's used and referred to quite frequently by the department to see what areas of the highways need upgrading. Actually, that is what has driven the process to ensure that the planning for the widening and upgrading of the highway going into Dawson takes place. It's directly related to its usage. Otherwise, we'd be relegated to just a trail coming from rural Yukon.

Mind you, in Whitehorse, it's not a problem to find another $3 million or $4 million to twin Hamilton Boulevard, but in rural Yukon, we can't even get street lights. So, that's the issue. Could the minister agree to provide the vehicle counts?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Certainly, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, one of the other interesting areas that this minister has partial responsibility for is Connect Yukon. In opposition, this minister was adamant that it wasn't going to provide phone service to all of rural Yukon and that a lot of her constituents and a lot of my constituents will be left out of the loop, as far as having phone service. We won't receive any. And it's not because we're getting disconnected off an existing system. The system doesn't even exist and will not exist under this Connect Yukon initiative.

Now, my understanding of Connect Yukon was one way. I've since read a great deal of the documentation and understand it to be another way. And now this federal initiative, Connect Canadians, has come upon us. Could the minister explain how the Connect Canadians initiative is going to dovetail with the Connect Yukon initiative and connect with the upgrading that Northwestel is undertaking? How will all these programs be put together? And I don't want the minister to just stand up and say, "You'll get better phone service", because we all hope that that's the case, but how do they all dovetail together?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As the Member for Klondike well knows, the Connect Yukon is about high-speed Internet and data service and not about telephones. The federal government's Connecting Canadians initiative at this point has a task force in place, and it's mapping out a strategy. They will advise the federal government on the best approaches by March 31, 2001. At this point, they're working on a strategy. At this point, there is no connection with Connect Yukon.

Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister advise how the Yukon plugs into the strategy that Connect Canadians is developing? Are we taking the initiative, are we lead following, or are we just getting out of the way?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The Government Services department is participating in the mapping out of that strategy. At this point, they are working on a strategy. That is all that is happening to this point.

Mr. Jenkins: Let's run this one by again. I have learned now that the Connect Canadians initiative is going to be under Government Services, but Connect Yukon is under the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. Why the distinction? Why are we going this way? Is it just to hide something? Currently, it's just about impossible to find out any information, seeing that Connect Yukon is split between three different departments, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Government Services is responsible for telecommunications, except for the Connect Yukon project. Government Services is in contact with Industry Canada representatives, and they will be representing the interests of the Yukon on the task force.

Mr. Jenkins: So, when we get into Government Services, the minister will be completely versed in this area. Is that what you're telling the House, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, then why do we have Connect Yukon resting with Community and Transportation Services? It was there. The whole telecommunications was in C&TS, and I'm not sure what happened but it moved over to Government Services. Now we have moved some of it back to C&TS, but only a piece of it. Why are we splitting it up between two different departments - the whole telecommunications Internet? They're one and the same. It's all communications. Data transmission is more where we're headed. It's a very interesting area and we seem to have split it up. Why did we do that, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:I have explained that several times in this House, but apparently the Member for Klondike missed it. So, I'll be happy to explain it again.

When we were in opposition and Connect Yukon was first announced, the then Minister of Government Services said it was all about telephone service to rural Yukon. That is a particular interest of mine, so when we formed the government, I asked the Premier for responsibility for the Connect Yukon project, believing it to be about telephone service to rural Yukon. Great was my surprise when I discovered that it was not about telephones - not a telephone in sight - but was instead about high-speed Internet and data access to the communities. That is how the Connect Yukon project came to live in Community and Transportation Services.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I guess it begs the question: now that the minister knows it's not about telephones, but another area, why hasn't it been moved back to where it rightfully belongs - in Government Services, along with all the other communication initiatives?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Well, the project was underway, the transition to Community and Transportation Services was happening, and it made more sense to leave this particular project where it was. Government Services provides telecommunication services within all of the department, and this particular project is a specific thing for high-speed data and Internet access to the communities. It has a finite time frame, and that's that.

Mr. Jenkins: What it boils down to is that the minister wanted it because she thought she was going to have a political coup coming her way. I guess, at the end of the day, that's what it boils down to. I guess it might have been somewhat controversial, seeing the tremendous amount of notes and advice the minister received from the Minister of Government Services and the Premier of the Yukon. The advice was flowing. We needed these individuals just a few minutes ago to provide some insight to the minister when she failed to or couldn't answer some of the previous questions.

Could the minister provide us with an overview of the Connect Yukon initiative? Is it on course, on budget and when will we see the benefits of the results?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Yes, I'm pleased to say that the project is proceeding on schedule and the member already has a copy of that schedule.

Mr. Jenkins: The component for medical transmission of data - when can we see some benefits accruing? I don't want the minister responsible for Connect Yukon to pass the buck to Health and Social Services, but the system works well south of Whitehorse, but north of Whitehorse it's a different story. When can we see this system up and running - telemedicine?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I'll be happy to get that information for the member.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, it's odd, Mr. Chair. It's an initiative that crosses boundaries and it's becoming more and more difficult to unearth where these initiatives take place.

Let's explore with the minister, Mr. Chair, the issues surrounding the actual funding of Connect Yukon. Has the minister examined the legalities of the way it was funded from the immigrant investor fund? Or did she indeed even have any concerns about the immigrant investor fund being used and the money flowing to a numbered company?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The funding arrangement was already established before it became my responsibility. The Yukon government has entered into a contractual agreement, as the member knows, because I've explained this in the House before, as well. A separate corporation was established to flow the funds for the project. The Yukon government is contributing a total of $23.5 million to the Connect Yukon project over five years. Northwestel is contributing $3 million in capital, plus the O&M costs associated with the new infrastructure.

I am satisfied that the funding arrangements are perfectly legal, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: So the minister is completely comfortable that the funding arrangement is completely legal, even though the immigrant investor fund has very, very strict guidelines attached to it for its use. Now, what led to the minister making that statement? Has she obtained a legal opinion or an opinion from the Department of Justice in-house in that regard?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The member has received - once as a legislative return and once as a filed copy of that same legislative return - a complete answer to that question about the funding for Connect Yukon.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, the minister is avoiding the question, Mr. Chair. Because the question as to the funding and the outline of how it flowed - I have copies of that.

The area that I am addressing and asking the minister to answer is: was a legal opinion obtained, either from the Department of Justice or outside, with respect to the legality surrounding the flow of the money and the way it flowed from the immigrant investor fund to a numbered company controlled by Government of Yukon to Northwestel? Because the immigrant investor fund has specific guidelines attached to it by the federal government, and it is not to be used for government purposes, and it is very, very strict. And by setting up this numbered company - in the opinions of a number of individuals I have spoken to - all it does is circumvent the rule.

Now I want to know from the minister if a legal opinion was obtained with regard to the method that the monies were flowed.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As I have already explained to the member, the Connect Yukon project was in place at the time this government took office. I am satisfied that the funding arrangements are legal. The member has twice had a complete answer to this question. If he has a new question related to this supplementary budget, I would be happy to deal with it.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, the minister has failed to answer the question. She skirted all around the question. And, yes, it was an arrangement made by the prior government, but it's obvious that the Minister of Finance, with respect to the Argus property, saw fit to dispatch a lawyer from her staff to Vancouver to look at that area, because she had a different interpretation with respect to the Argus situation and she wanted to evade and avoid - probably, more appropriately, to evade - a lawsuit at all possible costs by instructing the City of Whitehorse to pay off Argus and its suppliers, its contractors, its subs. But Mr. Chair, we might be in the same situation with the methodology employed here. And just because it's kind of an in-house arrangement, it still has to pass the examination of the Auditor General's office, and it still has to pass the test of conforming to the federal regulations and laws with respect to the immigrant investor fund and the guidelines associated with it by the federal government.

Now, once again, the minister has said that she is very comfortable with it. How did she obtain that measure of comfort with the funding? Was it by way of a legal opinion on this initiative?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: I'm not asking for a legal opinion. I'm asking the minister if her measure of comfort surrounding this initiative was determined or given to her by a legal opinion. That's all.

Speaker: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins: Once again, Mr. Chair, we have a very incompetent minister not answering questions in this House. It's sad.

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

Point of order

Chair: Ms. Tucker, on a point of order.

Ms. Tucker: Under the rules of debate - using abusive and insulting language likely to create disorder - I believe calling a member of this Legislature "incompetent" is completely inappropriate, abusive and denigrating.

Chair: Mr. Jenkins, on the point of order.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, there's no point of order. "Incompetent" - all I'm doing is stating the truth, and if the member opposite is telling me that I'm not stating the truth, then the government House leader is abusing the rules of this House.

That's where we're at, Mr. Chair. There is no point of order. We're just in general debate, and if you were following, which I'm sure you were, Mr. Chair, you'd see very, very clearly that the minister is constantly refusing to answer questions - logical, very well-defined questions - and there has to be a reason for her failure to answer these questions. Either she doesn't know the answer or is incompetent.

If it's that she doesn't know the answer, could the minister please stand up and say that she doesn't know the answer and will get back to me? When she doesn't do that, one can only conclude that it's the other way, Mr. Chair.

There's no point of order. It's just a dispute between members.

Chair's ruling

Chair: I'd ask the members to give me one second to consider this.

Order please. After considering arguments from both sides of the floor, a member has a right to express an opinion, and I believe that what Mr. Jenkins was doing was expressing an opinion.

What I do want members from all sides to consider is that, while the word was used this time and I will not rule that word out of order, future uses that may inflame the debate will be considered out of order, and I'd ask members to use the word judiciously. But Mr. Jenkins, in this case, is not out of order.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Chair, before I was rudely interrupted by the -

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Point of order

Chair: Ms. Tucker, on a point of order.

Ms. Tucker: Mr. Chair, using the rules of debate is not a rude interruption; neither is expressing an opinion on this side of the House about the continual denigration of the members of this House in what we feel is an inappropriate manner and personal in nature.

We would appreciate it if the member opposite didn't use his points of order as an opportunity to speechify his own conduct.

Chair: Mr. Fairclough, on the point of order.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, you made a ruling in this House and asked members opposite to get on with the debate and not have a delay. I believe that is what the member of the third party is referring to - the constant delays in here. We want answers, and we want to get on with the debate.

Chair: Mr. Jenkins, on the point of order.

Mr. Jenkins: On the point of order, there is no point of order. It's just an impediment to the debate in this House. What we have is a minister who either can't answer the questions or won't answer the questions. That's the impediment to the progress of debate in this House, along with the constant interruptions.

Chair's ruling

Chair: Order please. On the point of order, there is no point of order. I would remind members - and I will hit a limit where I will find inflammatory and argumentative language out of order. This is civilized debate, and this is to get on with the business of the House. I would ask members to be judicious in your words and your actions toward each other.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Well, Mr. Chair, there is really no debate being carried out in the House because I'm asking questions and the minister is not responding. She's avoiding the questions and going to great lengths to make it very, very difficult to even get a toe in the door. She is throwing up every type of roadblock possible - deferring to other departments, deferring to previous governments. It's just not a reasonable expectation.

So I will take the minister back to my question with respect to Connect Yukon and her position that she was comfortable with the way the financing was put in place. There are quite a number of individuals who have pointed out clearly to me, Mr. Chair, that there could very well be a problem with the way the financing flows for this Connect Yukon initiative.

It could very well be contrary to the rules in the immigrant investor fund - rules that are put in place by the federal Government of Canada.

Now, all I was asking the minister for was an answer as to why she has a measure of comfort with these arrangements. That was a simple, straightforward question. Was her measure of comfort established by a legal opinion? I am not asking for the legal opinion. I am asking why she has a measure of comfort with the financing arrangements - a very straightforward, succinct question.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The loan agreement was written by lawyers and approved by Canada. If the Member for Klondike has some allegations that it is improper, I wish he would bring them forward.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the minister aware of the rules surrounding the immigrant investor fund? Yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: Now, just because an agreement has been drafted by lawyers doesn't mean that it conforms in all respects to the letter and intent of the law. In many respects, lawyers draft an agreement in order to avoid aspects of the terms of reference or the law. Now, avoidance is quite okay. That is not a problem, but it also has to conform with the intent of the law.

So if the minister is aware of the terms through which funds from the immigrant investor fund can be invested, if she is comfortable that it's completely above-board and legal, we can move on. But, Mr. Chair, I would caution the minister that there are a great deal of individuals out there who are of the opinion that it's otherwise.

Now, the debt-servicing of Connect Yukon, why is it picked up in Government Services? If the Department of Community and Transportation Services is responsible for Connect Yukon, why is the debt-servicing for Connect Yukon buried in Government Services department?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I believe the member is factually incorrect. The Connect Yukon project in its totality is within the Department of Community and Transportation Services. If the member has allegations of some impropriety in the way this project is funded, I wish that he would bring those allegations forth.

Mr. Jenkins: What I was referring to, Mr. Chair, was the debt-servicing of the monies borrowed from the immigrant investor fund. It is reflected in the budget of Government Services. Now, the minister just stated that it's all within the Department of Community and Transportation Services, but that's not the case. We know full well that the debt-servicing of the money back to the immigrant investor fund flows from Government Services. Why isn't all of this contained within the Department of Community and Transportation Services - all the financial implications, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The member is factually incorrect.

Mr. Jenkins: Has a change occurred? Because the debt-servicing was clearly identified in the budget of Government Services in the mains. Has it been changed by this Liberal government?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: In the supplementary, we are moving the money for this project from Government Services to Community and Transportation Services. It's a budget transfer of $2.9 million in relation to the transfer of responsibility.

Mr. Jenkins: Perhaps the minister can help me. Where is this reflected in the line items of the department? What page? What line item?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: It's on page 3-4 - special projects, telecommunications infrastructure development, Supplementary No. 2, $2.9 million. That's the transfer of funds for the project.

Mr. Jenkins: On page 3-4 - we're right on the same book, infrastructure development, $2.9 million. So we should see a corresponding reduction in Government Services. Perhaps the minister could help me with the reduction in Government Services. All I see is infrastructure development, rural telecommunications, capital recoveries, $200,000; infrastructure development is $2,810,000.

So, there's a difference. Why is there a difference?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The member is correct that there is a difference. I'm sure that when we get to the Government Services debate, the Minister of Government Services will explain that difference.

Mr. Jenkins: If we're going to move money around, it usually helps if it's the same amount in and out. Then it's easier to track. When it's a different amount, you just don't relate one to the other, even though they are possibly related, and we're talking about a difference between them, Mr. Chair. I can see now where the minister is coming from, but there is a difference in the amounts in the reduction versus the amount added in.

Why can't the Minister of Community and Transportation Services explain the difference? Why do we have to wait for the Minister of Government Services, Mr. Chair? It seems to be a transfer totally from one department to the other.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The Minister of Government Services has brought me his budget notes, and $2.0 million from the Connect Yukon agreement with Northwestel was transferred to Community and Transportation Services. There was a $90,000 revote of wages and consulting services for development of Connect Yukon infrastructure, spent prior to the transfer date.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the minister advise the House when the transfer took place from one department to the other? Was that immediately upon this government taking office, or was it a different date, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I don't know the exact date off the top of my head, but it was within a few weeks of May 6, when this government was sworn in.

Mr. Jenkins: If the minister could provide that - it would have to be a Cabinet decision, Mr. Chair, to transfer this within government. So, could that information be forthcoming?

Mr. Chair, if we can just back up, I have a whole series of questions surrounding airports. I will probably leave most of them.

The area concerning the Whitehorse Airport - once again, it looks like the feds have pulled the wool over the eyes of the Yukon and a number of other governments in Canada.

The Whitehorse Airport was transferred to Yukon. One would have been of the opinion that, at the time of transfer, it would have conformed to and met all of the applicable standards for safety and firefighting ability. But that was proven to not be the case with respect to the water supply at the airport, which was previously a Transport Canada requirement.

Now, the Government of Yukon has had to budget quite a sum of money to lay another water main to the Whitehorse Airport to supply an adequate amount of water for firefighting purposes. The attachment to the new line is at one heck of an exorbitant cost versus the attachment to the older line, or the old system.

Now, why can't a case be made to Transport Canada - the same way as the case is being made with respect to the Dawson City Airport - that this airport didn't conform to the standards that were in existence at the time? It should be a requirement of Transport Canada to pick up this additional cost. Why can't a case be made for the water supply to the Whitehorse Airport?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: It's a general upgrade of the whole area, not just to the airport. The City of Whitehorse and the Government of Yukon are sharing the project costs. The project was begun this year and will be completed next year.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I know that it has now developed into a general upgrade. But let's just back up. At the time of transfer of the airport from the federal government to the Government of Yukon, the Whitehorse Airport did not conform in every respect to the standards in existence at that time for water necessary for fire protection. It did not. That has been substantiated in the report on the Whitehorse Airport. It was done about a year and a half or two years ago, Mr. Chair.

So, why can't the department make a case to the federal government that they should come to the table and ante up some of the money to meet that upgrade requirement? There wasn't enough water there for fire protection, Mr. Chair. That's a given. And there wasn't enough water there at the time that the airport was transferred. It just didn't have the firefighting capacity for fire flows.

An agency of the federal government sets the standards for fire flows at all of the hydrants around municipalities. If you don't conform to those standards, you have got a problem getting your rating and your insurance goes that way - right to the sky.

So, given that there was a problem at the time that the airport was transferred from the federal government to the Yukon government and it didn't conform to the standards in existence at that time, why can't the Government of the Yukon make a case to the federal government for a contribution to the upgrade for adequate water supply to fight fires? Because you certainly don't need the size of the main up there that currently exists. The only reason it exists to the size that it does is for fire protection and to meet fire flows. It is not to be able to have water in the tap. You can do that with a considerably smaller sized line. So the fire flow is what drives the size of the main and the fire flows are what drives the costs, because your pumping and your main size have to be considerably increased.

So given that that is the reality of the day, why can't the department make a case to the federal government for a contribution?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I believe that if a case could have been made, the department would already have done it. I am aware that Transport Canada did provide some money for the airport in recent years, but I would be glad to check to see if the previous administration had asked the feds, and I would consult with department officials; but I believe that if it could have been done, they would already have done it.

Mr. Jenkins: That's a pretty poor assumption to go on - if it could have been done, they would have done it. I would caution the minister not to go there, Mr. Chair.

Well, it has been known for a considerable length of time that there wasn't adequate water at the Whitehorse Airport, Mr. Chair. You can go back into the late 1980s, and you can go back into the 1970s when that was the case. In fact, when they were building on the south end of the airport, there wasn't the ability to extend the water lines down there, because there wasn't enough fire flows to meet the existing. And it was known that when Public Works Canada built the new terminal, there wasn't enough water to meet the sprinkler conditions in that building.

Now, this is all under the ownership of the Government of Canada, and it appears that, once again, Transport Canada or a federal government agency has a set of rules, and as long as it's the federal government that owns or operates the facility, the rules can be interpreted with a wide degree of flexibility. But as soon as ownership transfers from the federal government to the Government of the Yukon and all the federal government is doing is acting as the enforcement agency, well, Yukon had better conform to the full letter of the law.

And, that's exactly what happened with the airport in Dawson. That's exactly what has happened with the airport and firefighting water here in Whitehorse, Mr. Chair.

Now, I would urge the minister to go back and re-examine this area, because there's probably a window of opportunity to pick up a great deal of money. We are talking about a great sum of money. To just suggest to the House that if it could have been done, it would have been done - I'm very, very uncomfortable with the minister making that type of a statement, Mr. Chair. In fact, I would suggest to the minister that she would be remiss in addressing her responsibilities if she takes that tack. She should be going back, asking her officials to examine this area and making representation to the federal government to come to the table and bring some money to address this shortfall, at the time the transfer was made.

We only have to look at the Watson Lake Airport, Mr. Chair, and the tremendous sum of money that was expended on bringing the water system there up to standard, after the airport was transferred from Transport Canada to Yukon. There wasn't a great deal of money in the transfer pot.

Yes, there was money to meet obligations to bring all of the other airports, the Arctic B and C, up to standard, which meant that we constructed a fancy little terminal at the airstrip in Carmacks and we spent a fortune out at Haines Junction building a nice terminal and office complex there, Mr. Chair. Out at Burwash, we put in an added facility and out at Beaver Creek - but that's not the issue here. Those airports were substandard. The federal government contributed the money necessary to bring them up to the standard it was determined that all the airports should be.

What was overlooked was the water supply for firefighting purposes at the Whitehorse Airport. Will the minister undertake to go back, have her officials review this matter, see if representation can be made to the House and report back to the House on this initiative?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The government did get some money for capital from the federal government. The agreement was negotiated when the Yukon Party was in power and Mr. Brewster was the minister. So I'm sure he looked at all avenues because he was a well-known penny-pincher. But I will instruct the department to look at the situation.

I certainly do agree with the member that the water pressure problem has existed for a good many years, and I know that if anybody tried to use the sprinklers at the airport, they would have been spitting rather than spraying.

Mr. Fentie: I have just one quick question for the minister, as we're on airports. We all know what Nav Canada and the role they play in the Yukon Territory is all about now, and the CARS program at airports. There is up and coming in the near future something that's called a flight information centre, and it's connected to the CARS program and Nav Canada.

My request of the minister would be to lobby Nav Canada to seriously look at putting the flight information centre into the community of Watson Lake. We have a tower, we have a good facility as far as a terminal, and we are in desperate need of jobs. This is something that comes with the federal government system, and it would be, I think, a very positive step to take. We could look at that and have this minister make representation to Nav Canada to establish the flight information centre in the community of Watson Lake and provide those jobs there where they're so desperately needed.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I certainly will look into that. I haven't yet received many details on these flight information centres but I certainly will look into that for the member.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, while we're on CARS and Nav Canada, Mr. Chair, there are some changes coming down the pike with respect to the CARS operators and their ability to talk with approaching and in-transit aircraft. These changes could very much act to the detriment of the general aviation industry. It looks like everything will be done by RCOs out of Whitehorse, or probably eventually Edmonton Centre. Has the minister been briefed on the proposed changes with respect to the CARS station operators? There really have been no changes with respect to weather. That's one of their main roles - weather. But with respect to the operation of CARS, it's something else. Is the minister aware of the changes? What is being proposed by Nav Canada?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I haven't yet had a detailed briefing.

Mr. Jenkins: The other area of concern is with respect to emergency services. The Minister of Health and Social Services is very much aware of the additional costs for the call-out of CARS operators in Dawson when there is a medevac flight after-hours. It's become more and more frequent under the Minister of Health and Social Services' watch.

So, this type of a situation gives rise to one set of rules for the CARS operator in case of a medevac flight and another set during the course of a daytime medevac flight. I don't believe there should be anything distinguishing both extremes. I think a CARS operator should treat an approaching aircraft the same way at all times, especially in the remote areas. What is happening, or what will be happening, is that all of the weather-related information is currently imported into Whitehorse. You'll be approaching the airstrip in Old Crow, Mayo, Dawson or Burwash in the not-too-distant future, and you'll be talking to an individual based here in Whitehorse.

And it does give rise to safety issues and it does give rise to difficulties, especially when there are a lot of aircraft in the area. And at times, in Watson Lake and in Dawson, we can have a considerable amount of aircraft movement in the course of a day, especially when we are fighting forest fires or something of that nature. Now, the statistics for aircraft movement for the last couple of years have been down in the Yukon - last year especially, because of the lack of forest fires. But in a normal season, the amount of aircraft movement is almost double what it currently is. And it just seems like the approach taken by NAV Canada is going to scare away a lot of aircraft - both visiting aircraft and itinerant aircraft in transit between the Lower 48 and Alaska or the other way around - and act to the detriment to our visitor industry.

Now, I would urge the minister to get up to speed with where NAV Canada is headed, number one, with respect to our changes in the CARS operators, especially with its treatment of medical evacuation aircraft, and number two, with general itinerant aircraft. Because at the end of the day the operator in the CARS station in the communities will not be allowed to talk to that aircraft. The information has to go from the rural airport to Whitehorse, and the approaching aircraft pilot will be talking to Whitehorse. The CARS operator, other than inputting or providing weather to Whitehorse, will be basically out of the loop. And that is going to present problems.

It won't present problems in the dead of winter, but it's going to present problems when we come into the summer. So, is the minister going to be looking at this area, and does she have any plans to do anything?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: We run the CARS program, as the member knows, under contract to Nav Canada, and Nav Canada sets the rules. They can only implement significant service changes following consultation with stakeholders. They are required to do an aeronautical risk analysis study that justifies the proposed change. They are required to provide 45 days' notice to the Yukon government and users once a decision is reached; and if we reject the proposal, they can only implement the change if the federal Minister of Transport approves the proposal.

They have told us that they have no plans to change the service levels currently provided in the Yukon. I would certainly not support any attempt to reduce the level of service currently provided.

Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister advise the House if her department has rejected the proposal by Nav Canada to reduce their contact with itinerant aircraft?