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?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fairclough:      I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Yesterday, the minister said he was committed to making changes in the Mayo school design to save some $700,000. He also said this government would honour the commitments made to the community of Mayo. He can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister now correct the record and will he be making major changes to the Mayo school design with or without the approval of the community?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, as the Premier and I had indicated to the residents and the council in Mayo in November - and the Premier, at each commitment that was made, acknowledged the commitment and agreed to the commitment. We had also committed at that time that the town was notified that there would have to be required changes to bring the cost factor down and if there were any changes that they didn't completely agree with, then those changes wouldn't be implemented. So, there was an understanding, Mr. Speaker, that changes would have to occur - and they will have to occur - to bring the costs down. The changes that we are talking about will not be impacting on program; they will not be impacting on room size; they will not be impacting on overall school size. The foundation is there and we're going to, at the end of March of next year, be starting construction on that foundation.

Mr. Fairclough:      It sounds like the changes will be made with or without the approval of the community, Mr. Speaker. The minister has already indicated that as many as four contractors may be bidding on the new tender. The only reason that these changes are being made is so that government won't face a lawsuit for bid shopping. Why is the minister trying to tell the people of Mayo that these are not significant changes? At the same time, he is telling the contractors that they are significant.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      We had committed to the folks up in Mayo that we would not be making substantive changes to the building, and they were fully aware of that. As a matter of fact, during the break, the Premier and I both walked around and talked to residents. They are aware that some of the factors in the school will have to change.

And the Member for Mayo-Tatchun is correct in that with the changes to accommodate the $1-million overbudget expenditure on that building, the changes will be required to bring that factor down. We are hoping that, through the competitive bid process with potentially four contractors, we will be able to build a school that the residents in Mayo want for the dollars provided in the budget - the former NDP government budget, which we have adopted as our own. And we will build it to that budget, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, the Premier said in the community of Mayo that there will not be any changes to the school. Any changes would be for the good, and this minister is not following the same direction that has been given by the Premier. Once again, this government simply will not admit when it has made a major mistake. Contracts can go overbudget in Whitehorse but not in Mayo. Developers in Whitehorse can snap their fingers and this government will let them walk away from their contractual obligations.

Will the minister now admit his mistakes and give instructions for the construction to proceed without any significant changes?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, the people in Mayo have been waiting 26 years for a school. For 15 years they have been promised. They were promised by both governments represented by members on the opposite side that, after 15 years, they would have a new school. They have held the community to ransom for 26 years in total - 26 years in total.

So, as we have indicated, we are committed to the budget that they provided us with. We said we would live with it. We cannot continually, continually, continually go overbudget by millions and millions of dollars. It just seems unrealistic that the members opposite can't grasp the fact that you can't keep going into deficit budgets year after year after year.

Question re:   J.V. Clark School design changes

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, this is for the same minister, Mr. Speaker.

This is the government that brought in a $37-million surplus but couldn't find the dollars to make sure that the project happened. When it comes to projects in Whitehorse - "Go ahead. Overbudget? No problem." But for the communities, it's no way.

Mr. Speaker, there are changes proposed for the school that are major - the mezzanine, for example, and the stairs and handrails and the gym. This government is proposing changes to the floors, walls, ceiling and roof.

The Village of Mayo put in their amount of money, $500,000, to enhance the gym for community use, and this government is cutting back on their commitment to that community. Mr. Speaker, how are these proposed changes being rationalized? Why won't this minister drop those changes?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, I had thought that the members opposite had at least some semblance of understanding of budgeting and of surplus versus deficit - of debt. So, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is acting responsibly. We committed and we will honour those commitments that were made with the folks in Mayo.

It really is unfortunate that the members opposite continually antagonize, as opposed to, in this particular situation, being somewhat more supportive. I understand the opposition's position here in the House - that they have to disagree, challenge and hold us accountable. I agree with all the wonderful, fluffy words they use on the other side. But there are times that we should be grouping together and acting responsibly - and that means responsibly with taxpayers' dollars.

The Premier and I are going to be held accountable to the commitments that we made to the residents of Mayo, and we will follow through on those commitments.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, Mr. Speaker, there was no problem for that government to approve $500,000 for Hamilton Boulevard, but when it comes to children, they refuse to put more money into the budget for something as important as a school. The community has been working to design this school for two years, and this government is coming forward, without consultation with the community, and continually trying to cut out the design that the community had put forward, Mr. Speaker.

There are increases to O&M costs and several of the proposed cost-saving measures, such as changing of the insulation from the cellulose to fibreglass, which is a 38-percent decrease in energy efficiency, Mr. Speaker. They have gone from triple-pane windows down to double-pane windows, which are again a decrease in energy efficiency of 35 percent. It doesn't address the priorities of this government in regard to energy efficiency.

Speaker:      Order please. Will the member please get to the question?

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, will the minister now drop those changes, go back to the original design and have a proper school built for the residents and the students in Mayo and not just a matchbox design?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, you can almost become speechless with the continuing negative rhetoric that comes across. And this member is representing his constituents in Mayo. You would think he would want to be a little more supportive than talking about Mayo becoming a matchbox school. That's disgusting. And the agreement that we had in front of Chief Hager and the minister responsible for Government Services was that we wouldn't be ransoming the children in Mayo in discussions in this House. But obviously, the member opposite isn't going to be holding to that commitment - obviously.

Mr. Fairclough:      The minister is directing changes to be made to the school. So he and that government are not honouring the commitments that they made to the people in Mayo. First they promised that they would pass the budget in its entirety, which involves the Mayo school, and then they postpone construction. And now they go to the community and make another promise that there would be no changes to the school. That's from the Premier herself, and I have the minutes of the meeting in front of me and the commitments by the Minister of Education. And now they want to make changes so that they can retender the contract. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some hidden agenda with regard to the contract itself. On one hand they are making changes, and on the other hand they are juggling the books. With regard to the electric boiler, for example, the recommendation is to go and find financing somewhere else and take it out of the original costs.

Speaker:      Order please. Will the member please get to the question?

Mr. Fairclough:      Why won't the minister drop the changes and go back to the original design as agreed to by the community of Mayo?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      He is very right in that we adopted their budget as our own. And in their budget they had identified a cost for that school, which we are obligated to follow through on, and we still spend that money on the school - and the so-called matchbox school that he is alluding to.

We had made commitments in Mayo and we are honoring those commitments. We are following through on our commitments to provide the best school that Mayo can get, and if they wanted a more expensive school, then the NDP should have put more money in at that time. But a $1-million overexpenditure is unacceptable for Yukon taxpayers. And they talk about a $64-million surplus - well, let's not forget about the $33-million deficit.

Question re:  Group homes, staffing and quality of care

Mr. Jenkins:      I have a question today for the Minister of Health and Social Services.

Back on October 31 of this year, I presented a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, calling upon the government to establish a public inquiry into the operation of public and private sector group homes. The minister and his Liberal colleagues decided to put partisan interests above the well-being of children in care here in the Yukon and denied me the unanimous consent required to debate this serious issue, which was most unfortunate.

Since that time, the government has taken over the operation of the 16 Klondike group home from the previous private sector operator. It is questionable, however, if children in government care are better off than those in private sector group homes, which speaks to the need for an independent inquiry.

Now, I have heard reports of children in government care being placed inappropriately with other children who have serious behavioural problems, as well as reports of other problems. Is the minister aware of these serious problems, and what does he plan to do about them?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, we have many problems in our society, many problems in the communities, and we have many problems in Whitehorse. And it's not just for government to come up with all the answers and solutions. We are there as an emergency backup support for families, for communities, but we're not there to address every issue that there is in a community.

Yes, I'm aware of the fact that we have problems. Yes, we as a government are addressing those problems that are brought to our attention, and yes, Mr. Speaker, when we have to intervene, we do so for the safety of our children and our families.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, what an inappropriate answer from this minister. Emergency backup - that's all that they're there for. I submit that the government is there to look after children placed in care, usually by the court system. Look at the takeover of 16 Klondike Road. That costs three-quarters of a million dollars and requires the hiring of 17 residential care workers. It costs the government more to run these group homes themselves, yet there is no guarantee that they are meeting the needs of children in care any better than the private sector.

How can the minister assure the public that these government-run group homes are being run properly? How can he give that assurance without a public inquiry? The minister doesn't even know what's going on in his own department. Call a public inquiry into these group homes, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister do so?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I'm always amazed how the Member for Klondike knows everything. I mean, he knows everything about everything that goes on in the Yukon, and he comes across like the expert of experts. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of it has to do with bravado. Obviously, when you present that kind of an image, it's almost like it's believable, but it isn't. We know where it comes from.

As I shared with the member opposite, we do have problems. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm looking for constructive solutions. Our department is always searching for constructive solutions. We don't have all the answers.

Yes, there are times when we have to take action. It's unfortunate, but when that happens, it's there to protect children and families. I would like to ask that all of us work together and try to find creative solutions. If it means doing something that we have not normally done, I'm interested in that, too. But to say that we're going to move ahead on something specific at this point, when there have been no real specific issues raised by the member opposite, I would have to say, no, we're not going to do that at this point.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, what an answer. Here we have a very serious problem with the children in care in group homes, and the only way that the public can be assured that the proper operation for group homes for children at risk, run by the government or the private sector, is through the creation of an independent public inquiry into their operations.

Now, the minister is asking for suggestions and asking for ways that we can all work together. There is a very viable suggestion to the minister. Have a public inquiry into their operation, see how they are run, see what's wrong, see what we can do to correct them. Will the minister do what's right and establish that inquiry now, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, I once again have to share with the member opposite that we have been criticized because we review, we research, and we do our homework. We're criticized heavily by the members opposite for doing that. Now, we're being asked to review again. Let's get out there and find out what really is happening. I have no problem doing that, Mr. Speaker. I think that's very important. We always have to look at what we're currently doing and where we want to go in the future.

To say that I'm going to commit myself to the specific request at this point and time, I would have to say no. But I'm interested in exploring with all members how we can better our system. And if that's one of the suggestions, then it's one that we can talk about. But I cannot commit our government to making that kind of a decision at this point. It takes far more than just a question being asked. But I think, obviously, if we know that there is smoke, there must be fire and we have to find out where things are at. So, I'm quite interested in other ideas as well, Mr. Speaker, in order to find solutions.

Question re:  Cabinet makeup to represent rural Yukon

Mr. Fairclough:      I have a question for the Premier on a subject I raised a few days ago. The government caucus has now an MLA who represents a truly rural riding, not just two partially rural ridings in the Whitehorse periphery. When does the Premier intend to shuffle her cabinet to make sure the voice of rural Yukon is represented at the decision-making table?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, as much as I appreciate the member opposite's advice on how to organize this government, they had four years over there to organize a government. And we are here and we have a caucus that ably represents all Yukoners in a very open manner and in a very inclusive manner. Our entire caucus, for example, was involved in what formerly used to be called the Cabinet tours to the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes' riding. Our entire caucus attended those, as our entire caucus will be in Teslin in early February.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, Mr. Speaker, this government has been in office for over seven months and has gone through two legislative sittings. Rural Yukon has not been treated well by this government. The Premier has also had a chance to see her Cabinet in action, just as the people in the Yukon have. And I will resist the temptation to give an assessment of her various ministers because I don't want to wade into the choppy waters of unparliamentary language. But clearly, a shuffle is due.

Will the Premier announce a Cabinet shuffle to ensure that the public's business is in competent hands before the next legislative sitting?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for reading his very carefully constructed question. I only wish that the members opposite and their research staff would spend more time on researching real questions for this Legislature. It's clear they're out of them, if this is the best they can do for Question Period.

Our government is not only open and accountable; our Cabinet was very carefully constructed. And while I appreciate the member opposite's advice, I will take it under advisement. Our assessment will come in due curse.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, that's the reason why we're asking the questions. It's because of answers like that from ministers.

One of the areas causing great concern is the lack of economic leadership from this government. We're on a major downhill slide, and things are getting worse every month, and this government is doing nothing to correct the situation. Yukon people are frustrated and they're frightened. The Premier obviously has too much on her plate to do anything that her job demands.

Will the Premier do the right thing and resign her Economic Development portfolio to another caucus member for the reasons cited in the motion tabled by the Member for Watson Lake?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for reading the motion that was presented by the Member for Watson Lake into a question. The members opposite have provided their assessment of my performance as Minister of Economic Development to the Yukon public, and that is their role, I suppose, to do and certainly they're right. I appreciate their constructive criticism; however, the answer to the question is no.

Question re:   Trade mission to China

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, that's not what the public is telling us that they would like to see.

I have another question for the Premier. Last week, there were reports in the Globe and Mail that the Team Canada mission to China is running into some serious difficulties. Can the Premier advise the House if she still intends to accompany the Prime Minister on this trade mission?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I have indicated to the Prime Minister that, yes, I would attend.

Mr. Fairclough:      Several premiers have cancelled their plans to go on this trade mission, including most of the western premiers. Can the Premier tell us what her government hopes to accomplish with the Team Canada mission and what is being done to ensure Yukon business will be able to explore business opportunities in that part of the world?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, there are a number of initiatives that have been taken. At last count, there were four groups interested. I'm using that term as it includes non-government organizations interested in this particular trade mission.

I just would like to correct the member opposite's assertion with respect to my colleagues, the western premiers. Premier Okalik has also indicated his attendance, as they are interested in pursuing trade options for Nunavut as well. Premier Kakfwi has yet to determine whether or not he will attend. Premiers Dosanjh and Klein are facing elections in the spring and may call them earlier; hence, the reason for their non-attendance. A new premier will be in place in Saskatchewan, perhaps, two days before Team Canada leaves, which is the reason for Saskatchewan's non-attendance, and Premier Doer has yet to indicate whether or not he will attend.

Mr. Fairclough:      This Liberal government has been extremely quiet about trade and investment. People in the business community are wondering if this government supports their effort to expand into outside markets?

The Premier was very critical about efforts of the previous NDP government, but those efforts were revealing concrete results in many parts of the world.

One investment area that was being developed was combining the English language study opportunities with wilderness adventure here in the Yukon.

Will the Premier tell us if this Liberal government is moving forward with that program using the money that was in the budget that this Premier adopted earlier this year?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points that I need to address in the member opposite's question.

First of all, the member opposite is absolutely correct. I was very critical of the previous government's trade missions to the Sakha Republic, and I remain so today, because I, for one, as Economic Development minister, have not seen any results from that. There have been results from some efforts with regard to English-as-a-second-language programs, and we are certainly pursuing those and being of assistance where we can.

Another point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker - the other note that the member might take under advisement - is that, should my colleagues from some of the neighbouring provinces choose not to attend, that does afford me more of an opportunity to discuss Yukon issues with the federal government officials on the plane.

Question re:  Arts funding, agreement with DIAND

Mr. McRobb:      Well, that's another example of how this Liberal government said one thing in opposition and is doing something completely different in government.

My question today is for the Minister of Tourism. Recently the minister has been meeting with art groups in Whitehorse to talk about arts funding. During at least one of those meetings the minister spoke about a new economic development agreement through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs worth $10 million over the next five years.

Can the minister advise the House just how much of that proposed agreement would go directly to supporting arts programming in the Yukon?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      I dearly wish that the member opposite would just come to the meetings, so he could get the story straight. First of all, our government is actively pursuing economic development agreements with the Government of Canada - the federal government.

We are looking at a number of different ways we can fund the activities of the Tourism department. Some are under heritage; some are under the arts and some are under economic development and are to do with tourism infrastructure.

The exact figures for the economic development agreement have not been determined. We are in active negotiations, at the bureaucratic level, with the federal government. We will continue those negotiations. We are nowhere near the point where we are looking at exact figures, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:      It's another case of how this Liberal government does not respect the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. It's interesting to speculate as to why the minister would raise expectations in the Yukon arts community about new funding from DIAND before the details are available to the public.

I would like to follow up with the minister about her own approach to arts funding. Her department has been doing surveys on how to replace existing funding from the community development fund and tourism marketing fund. Is the minister considering handing over the decision-making on arts funding directly to the arts community, just as she plans to hand over the tourism marketing fund directly to the tourism industry?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      There are a number of suppositions here that are just absolutely not related to reality. The first one is that apparently there is a $10-million economic development agreement. Where the member opposite got that figure is an absolute mystery. Perhaps he should attend these meetings, instead of getting second-hand information that is less than accurate.

The second thing is that I never, ever attached a figure to the economic development agreement. If it were up to me, I would ask for $100 million. I would ask for $200 million, knowing darn well that I wouldn't get it.

It just goes on and on and on. Apparently now the arts community is going to dole out money to themselves. This is an interesting mix up of the facts. The reality is that, for many years, the arts branch has been allocating funding in grants through a process called peer review. Peer review is what is used by federal governments across this world.

And what it says is that other artists are the only ones that really know what is good quality art and what is not. And truly speaking, Mr. Speaker, I would have trouble figuring that out myself. So it's a good thing that we do have this peer review process, and that process is going to continue.

As for the tourism marketing fund being allocated to the Yukon tourism marketing partnership, this has not been decided. This is also pure conjecture and speculation from the side opposite. None of this is real, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the minister clarifying a very fuzzy situation and making it very crystal clear. I am sure Hansard will speak for itself.

Now, the minister told one arts group recently that the Liberal government is, and I quote, "getting out of the business of making decisions because we aren't very good at it." At least the minister and I can agree on one thing. But what about public accountability for public funds? Surely the minister isn't proposing to throw a $10-million bone into the yard and let competing interests in the arts community fight over it. Can the minister explain how she will ensure that all regions and all artistic disciplines will receive equal consideration for funding, and not just the larger, more organized arts bodies in Whitehorse?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Well, this is downright humorous. I mean, the side opposite just continues to read their questions without listening to the answers from the previous questions. There is no $10 million. It doesn't exist. This is a fantasy. And the whole question is based on this supposition. It doesn't exist.

Now, as far as throwing money out to the arts community - this government fully supports the arts community. It also supports the heritage community. It also supports the private sector, which offers services to tourists who come to the Yukon, as well as to Yukoners. That is an important part of what happens in tourism.

You know, if I had $10 million, Mr. Speaker - there is a song about this. Perhaps it should be the new song that we are looking for for the Tourism branch. But there is no $10 million. We are not giving it to anybody to give away because we don't have it.

Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Fentie:      In order to debate the public's business expeditiously in this Legislative Assembly, we in the official opposition will be asking for unanimous consent to stand down the motion we have called for debate this afternoon.

Speaker:      Is there unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      Unanimous consent has been granted.

Unanimous consent

Mr. Jenkins:      In order to expedite the business of the House and deal with the public's business, the Yukon Party would like to stand down the motion that we called for today, and I am requesting unanimous consent of the House.

Speaker:      Is there unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      Unanimous consent has been granted.

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 will take a 15-minute recess.

Recess

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

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

Chair:  We will continue with debate on Bill No. 3, Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01. We're on Economic Development line-by-line and we were discussing revenues.

Department of Economic Development - continued

Chair:  Ms. Duncan had the floor.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you just noted, when we left the line-by-line debate in the Department of Economic Development we were discussing a line item, $4.1 million in revenue. This is gross resource revenue. It is an estimate for an increase of oil and gas revenue flowing to the Yukon. The Member for Watson Lake has asked me exactly how much of that revenue is available to the Government of the Yukon, so to speak. The member put it somewhat differently, but for the sake of discussion - how much is available?

In the 2000-01 main estimates, the resource revenue was estimated at $2.9 million. In this supplementary budget, we're estimating an additional $4.1 million in oil and gas resource revenues. Of the additional $4.1 million, $2.4 million is removed from our formula finance funding arrangement.

So in essence, of the $4.1 million, $2.4 million is paid to the federal government, which leaves a balance of $1.7 million. Of that $1.7 million, $1,326,149 is available to the Yukon government. To First Nations, the amount is $373,851. There are assumptions built into that in terms of settlement of agreements and other points with respect to the formula, so these are estimate figures only, and they may be subject to further adjustments.

Now, the members opposite suggested that, given that there was an additional amount of revenues - and I have just confirmed that the actual figure to Yukon is $1,326,149 - members opposite put forward an argument seeming to believe that Economic Development would have this money available for programs within that department, programs such as the oil and gas unit or the trade and investment unit or others.

This is not the case, Mr. Chair. What is the case is that that additional million-plus revenues is available overall in Government of Yukon revenues and, as such, it becomes subject to the overall Government of Yukon pressures, such as the pressures to meet the needs and costs of our health care system, our education system and other areas where government is involved, such as growing Yukon industries, including tourism, oil and gas, the mining sector and others.

The members opposite have suggested repeatedly in this House that this government is doing nothing for the Yukon economy as a result of our overall budget expenditures.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      And the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes says, "You're doing something." The member is absolutely correct. We are doing a number of things.

We are investing in the Yukon. First and foremost, we have reduced personal income taxes for all Yukoners. By reducing personal income taxes, all Yukoners will be taking home more money. Not only did we do this action, Mr. Chair, but we did it in such a timely manner that Revenue Canada will be able to produce their tax tables reflecting the change.

Hence, Yukoners will see this change in the beginning of the year. There will be more money to spend by Yukoners in Yukon stores on Yukon products in all Yukon communities. This is a throughout-Yukon initiative.

When the tax cuts are combined with the federal tax cuts, it means millions of extra dollars in spending. This helps to stimulate the economy.

We've also been restoring highways funding. As I've said repeatedly, this is funding the NDP cut. We've been restoring our information technology budget, funding the NDP cut. We've been restoring funding for historic properties, funding that was cut under the previous government.

We have increased the mining incentive program by a quarter of a million dollars. We have lobbied for and obtained a new federal tax credit for flow-through shares. We've been lobbying hard for the Alaska Highway pipeline route, which the members opposite seem absolutely unable to come to a conclusive position on. And we have discussed it at great length in this Legislature.

We have also done such initiatives as the Electronic Commerce Act, promoting e-business in the territory, Mr. Chair.

And we have shown significant investment in our tourism industry through such programs as the stay-another-day program. We are investing in our film industry through the Yukon filmmakers development fund and the Yukon film incentive program.

Mr. Chair, not only are we as a government demonstrating our leadership and investment in Yukon and Yukoners, the public have also demonstrated their investment and their faith in the Yukon economy.

There are a number of business initiatives that are very well-known to Yukoners. One of those had a grand opening on Saturday - the Lewes River Timber and Dakwakada Forest Products. Their alliance is called "Northern Lights". Again, I mentioned to members opposite there is a private sector group actively planning a major tourism development in cooperation with the Carcross-Tagish First Nation.

Mr. Chair, we are seeing results in the short seven months that we have been in office and these results mean more jobs for Yukoners. Additional funding for the Yukon mining incentive program meant an additional number of applicants in excess of 50 that were approved under that program. Local mining supply and service companies, Mr. Chair, benefit from that expenditure.

We have been reminding members opposite to visit our Economic Development Web site and, although they may not be logging on to it, other people are. In the last two weeks alone we have seen in excess of 400 other individual people accessing this Web site for information on the oil and gas industry in Yukon.

$4.5 million is being spent on roads and highways work. Some of this work is not finished and will be completed early in the new year. This is work for Yukoners, Mr. Chair.

Our recent announcement of $500,000 toward the information technology, or IT, budget was welcomed by Yukon's IT Industry Society, even though members opposite criticized this expenditure. It's very fascinating to me, Mr. Chair, that, at times, the members opposite love to stand up and say, "But that was our initiative." And then they criticize us for actually implementing it and living up to agreements with Yukoners.

The film incentive program has generated $2 million in direct spending in the Yukon. The total value of Yukon's international goods exported in the first nine months has increased. It is greater than it was by some 40.4 percent in the same period in 1999.

Specifically, Mr. Chair, many government projects are employing Yukoners - 600 jobs. This government's capital projects, information technology projects, design and maintenance projects, heritage and film initiatives, land development projects, facility maintenance and renovation projects all create jobs for Yukoners.

It's estimated that the capital budget for this fiscal year, including the supplementary, is responsible for the equivalent of over 600 full-time jobs in the private sector, or FTEs. One FTE is based on a 40-hour work week, working 50 weeks per year.

Capital building projects - Stats Canada has reported that commercial building permits are up by more than 10 times what they were in September. Building permits have been issued that total almost $12 million for October alone, mostly in rural Yukon. The continuing care facility is expected to create employment of over 80 FTEs. Completion of the Ross River school employed the equivalent of another eight to 10 FTEs. The rec centres in Dawson City, in Ross River and in Carmacks, Mr. Chair, employed another dozen FTEs, and the upcoming Mayo school, with construction starting by the end of this fiscal year, will provide approximately 32 FTEs of employment.

The roadwork that is being undertaken in the Community and Transportation Services budget, including the supplementary - there is $90,000 on highway camp facilities maintenance this winter, half a million dollars on winter gravel crushing, and work on the Shakwak will be resuming this spring, and the Hamilton Boulevard, which has not been spoken of well in this House, nonetheless employed over 15 full-time equivalents.

There are demonstrable results for Government of the Yukon expenditures and the leadership being exhibited in the Department of Economic Development. I am very pleased with the work that we have undertaken to date. I am confident in the results that have been shown. I know that we have a great deal more work to do. In the first seven or eight months that we have been in office we have made a very good start, and we intend for the good work that we are doing to continue.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I thank the minister for that overview, that snapshot of all the hard work of the NDP, the former NDP government, and how that contributed to this Liberal government's ability to stand on the floor of this Legislature and this minister's ability to stand on the floor of the Legislature and trumpet all those jobs that the good works, the vision and the good governance of the former NDP government provided for Yukoners.

However, we are dealing with the supplementary budget that has been brought forward by this government and by this minister, in particular, when we come to the Department of Economic Development, and there are some serious problems in the Yukon's economy and we are simply not getting the leadership required to address those problems.

So, without further ado, Mr. Chair, I think it's time to move on past this particular area in the budget and get on to other areas in line-by-line so that we can hopefully ferret out some sort of answers from the minister about what she's going to do to assist Yukoners this winter because of the desperate straits they are in.

I, personally - when the minister made the comment about not seeing me at the Northern Lights grand opening, although I have talked personally to a number of the proponents of that operation because I feel that it is an important link in the overall development of a forest manufacturing sector - was busy setting up and organizing, through adopt-a-family initiatives, the bringing down of a number of presents and items for families in Watson Lake who find themselves, today, unable to even to purchase a turkey for Christmas. That's what I was doing instead of cutting a ribbon.

So, I'm prepared now to move on further into this budget.

Chair:  I see no further questions on revenues.

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures for the Department of Economic Development in the amount of $736,000 agreed to

Mr. Fentie:      This is just for a matter of clarity. We had cleared O&M and we're dealing with the section on revenue of $4.1 million.

Chair:  As far as I understand, I asked about revenue first and then I go back to O&M, so that we had not cleared O&M yet.

Office Furniture, Equipment, Systems and Space in the amount of $15,000 agreed to

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Chair, this is an area in the Department of Economic Development that has long, long been a very positive initiative in this territory. It goes back for years now. All one has to do is go out and tour Yukon communities to see the positive results that the community development fund has brought.

First off, the community development fund is a fund that allows communities, municipalities, public agencies and groups to come forward with projects that they design, that they develop, that they want to see happen in their respective communities, and it does a number of things from that point. First, it is a targeted expenditure by government to create employment. The fund itself, just to look at the number of applications and projects that have been approved, shows that there are hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of person hours of employment where people are earning a living in desperate times when they need it. It results in those very same people spending their money in their respective communities, helping the cash flow of each and every one of those communities.

Furthermore, because these projects are brought forward by communities and their people, it tends to lift community spirit because of the positive results that are achieved. Because the communities are doing it themselves, the spirits of the communities are uplifted and that, in this time of need, is also very, very valuable. And it's done through a small expenditure from government.

We in the official opposition have long since been aware of the positive elements of the community development fund. We support the community development fund wholly, in its entirety. We do not dispute the Liberal government wanting to review such a fund to improve it and make it better.

What we find a problem with, what we oppose, is stopping it altogether while that review takes place. That is why we developed our own supplementary budget for this sitting, to address some of those needs that are out there, especially in rural Yukon. Because rural Yukon does not have the benefit of large government employment, of a large government workforce, like Whitehorse does. The communities in rural Yukon, especially in winter, go through some very difficult times. They suffer. Hotels close, stores close, businesses lag behind in their accounts payables. All kinds of difficulties arise during the winter in rural communities and the community development fund and the fire smart program went a long way to address those difficulties and help the situation across the board in each and every community. That is why we developed and brought forward a supplementary budget.

Now, in our supplementary budget, in this particular area under the community development fund and the fire smart program, we have put forward an expenditure of $3 million. There is $2 million for the community development fund. I think the results of the legislative return on the community development fund, which the minister tabled in this Legislature, speaks for itself with the long, long list of projects in every community in this territory and what it is doing and the amount of people it's putting to work. The newly elected Member for Faro can give testimony to what the community development fund has done in his community, given the shutdown of the Faro mine. I don't think there's any argument about the positive elements that this community development fund gives to us and to the people of this territory.

On the fire smart side of things, we put in $1 million, because we know full well, given the history of the fire smart program - which was brought in by the former NDP government, and the now Minister of Tourism loudly proclaimed, when we brought in the first half a million dollars to start the program, that it wasn't enough. That minister proclaimed to the public, for all to hear, that it was not enough. That means to me that, at that time, this same minister, the Member for Riverdale South, took the view that the fire smart program was vital to the Yukon and that we should have put more money in. Conversely, when it's this government's turn to make the decision to put the money where its mouth is, what does it do? They shut it down. They shut it down completely.

Now, let's just quickly look at some fast arithmetic here, and what it means. Take the community of Watson Lake, which spearheaded the fire smart program, and, as in every other community that has successfully commenced with the program, it is done in phases. A community like Watson Lake, in a matter of days, could put together their next phase in the form of an application for money from the fire smart program. With a $50,000 investment into the fire smart application in the community of Watson Lake, we would put six people to work for four months in Watson Lake, earning a decent living. We don't have to dispute on the floor of this Legislature how many people in communities like Watson Lake are in need of earning a living.

Now, that's just one example. The Liard First Nation, in the Village of Upper Liard, could also bring forward another application within days, and with another $50,000, the same thing can happen - six people for four months.

So, in an area in the southeast Yukon that is in an economic depression and in desperate need of work, $100,000 could put 12 people to work for four months this winter.

We don't need to be chartered accountants to figure out what that means in terms of cash flow in the community of Watson Lake. Those same dozen people buy groceries, buy gas, buy oil, buy beer, buy hoagies at the convenience store - they spend their money. Today they are not. They are not spending their money because they don't have any. This government has lots of money. This Liberal government has the ability, without any problem whatsoever, to bring forward a $2-million community development fund initiative and $1-million fire smart initiative to help put people to work this winter. It will lift community spirits and help people get through the long, hard winter. They can earn a decent living; they can play a meaningful role in this territory. This is a good thing and it is a small price to pay by a government that started their mandate with $64 million. Mr. Chair, I ask the Minister of Economic Development, will she - I encourage the minister - bring forward another supplementary that reflects a $3-million expenditure in the community development fund and the fire smart program? Will she do that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The members opposite and I have had many discussions about the community development fund. I would remind the member opposite that I appreciate his remarks that the community development fund is not without positive results. There are results that are very visible throughout Yukon with respect to the community development fund. The fund was not without its criticisms and not without its problems. For example, the funding, as it was set up, did not allow for such things as the purchase of team uniforms. There were consistent applications for that sort of funding. There was also difficulty surrounding long-term O&M costs. While it is a very laudable decision and very widely supported by individuals, and there is a lot of work that goes into building particular facilities, there are also long-term implications that need to be addressed.

There is also working with municipalities and First Nation governments. I have had representations from several Yukon mayors with regard to the community development fund and how it seemed to work at cross-purposes with municipalities. Yes, there were good things accomplished by the community development fund; yes, there are criticisms that need to be examined. We are doing what any new, responsible government would do in that we are taking a look at the information and evaluating where we go from here.

Now, the member opposite's consideration and concern is that we're not continuing to spend money while we do that. Well, $3 million was budgeted by the NDP government for this fund, and I have already tabled for the members opposite the amount of grants and the amount of community development fund projects that were funded in the 17 days before they left office - between April 1 and April 17 - and the commitments that were made. We have spent the available funding for CDF on CDF. We have also spent, or we are seeking on this particular date and at this particular line item, an additional $455,000 for overcommitted projects. These are our commitments that have been made that have, for one reason or another, either gone over or have been committed and the funds have lapsed and this is the additional funding required.

The member opposite doesn't dispute our right, as a government, to look at the fund. He said that on his feet. He said that they don't dispute that. The issue is that the member opposite wants us to pour another $3 million into this fund while we look at it. We made the decision, as is our right to do, that we would put money in this supplementary budget for $7.5 million for health care, additional funding for individualized education funds, for additional teachers' resources in our classroom, educational assistance, for students' financial assistance. And those benefits, Mr. Chair, are felt throughout Yukon.

The members opposite like to make much and try to pretend that we have somehow ignored, or are ignoring, the very real difficulties throughout Yukon in Yukon's economy. We are not doing that. We are seeking long-term constructive solutions for building of our economy. We have chosen to address, in the supplementary budget, health care, education and other initiatives.

I have said that we are examining the community development fund. I have indicated why. I have expressed repeatedly, on the floor of this House and elsewhere, our support for fire smart. We are seriously examining fire smart and we are very supportive of it - the Member for Riverdale South and I, in particular. The member opposite says, "Well, in the meantime, just give out $50,000. Do this or do that."

There's also, Mr. Chair, the element of fairness that must be applied here. If you are going to fund fire smart applications, you have to ask for them and you have to give all communities a fair opportunity to apply. There is no funding available to do that for the balance of this fiscal year. I've explained that to the members opposite. The members opposite suggest that we should have put more money into the community development fund and fire smart in this supplementary budget. We did not do that. We made a very real choice. It's not their choice; however, it was our choice to make and we made it. And we made it for very good and sound reasons. We have appreciated their arguments. We understand them. We are working on the overall picture of the Yukon economy.

The Member for Mayo-Tatchun says, "No, you don't." I have information for the member opposite. Yes, we do understand the very real needs throughout Yukon. They are not restricted to Mayo. They are not restricted to Ross River. They are not restricted to Watson Lake. They are not restricted to Old Crow. Issues in our community are throughout Yukon and those issues include the very real health care issues, such as substance abuse, such as dealing with children's welfare, such as dealing with our economy, which affects every single one of us from Porter Creek on Ponderosa, to Watson Lake, to Old Crow - everywhere. These are the issues of Yukoners and this government has chosen to deal with them. And we've chosen to deal with them in the very real ways of meeting our health care needs, the education of our young people and dealing with the long-term issues in our economy of rebuilding the Yukon economy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I find it astounding that this minister somehow thinks that we disagree that they're focusing on health care and making expenditures there, that they're trying to rebuild the economy and focus on long-term solutions. We don't. We agree. What we are saying is that you don't have to have Yukoners suffer through a long, hard winter when you're sitting on a surplus, as of March 2000, of $64 million.

What is this, some kind of joke? What is this Liberal government doing with all that money? We are talking about the ability of many, many Yukoners to go to work this winter and earn a living. Are you asking these same people, who may not be here when the famous pipeline commences construction two to five years down the road, to wait the two to five years? Are you asking Yukoners to sacrifice all that time? How are they going to pay their bills? How are they going to put food on the table? How are they going to clothe their children? They're not going to stay here.

This minister has made a decision, all right. And it's not based on good, sound, fiscal management, because there's lots of money. It's not based on economic leadership, because economic leadership would lead one immediately to understand that there's much more to our economy that what's in the long term. There's the now and there's the need for a government in this territory, given the situation that we're in, to address those needs.

Furthermore, there's a real problem across the floor with the Liberal members. When we, on the floor of this Legislature, debate and discuss the terrible straits that we're in, economically, for many Yukoners, we have the Minister of Health and Social Services and the Minister of Tourism openly laughing about it. This is serious business.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

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

Ms. Tucker:      There is a point of order. You are avowing false motives to the members on this side of the House. There is no one on this side of the House who laughs at the plight of Yukoners. We are very aware of the plight of Yukoners and that is why we ran for office.

Mr. Jenkins:      You know, could I ask the government House leader to quit wasting the time of this House with these frivolous points of order. They are not doing anything to continue with the debate at this Legislature.

Mr. Fentie:      There is no point of order.

Chair's ruling

Chair:  On the point of order, I would point out that there were no rules broken. I feel that there was nothing said that could not be stated as an opinion, and so as a result, opinions are certainly allowed to be expressed in this House, so there is no point of order. Mr. Fentie, please continue.

Mr. Fentie:      Thank you. Furthermore, it is the same Minister of Health who stood on his feet in this Legislature and said that he has knocked on doors and talked to people on social assistance and they are happy. Well, I would argue that, for the most part, every one of those people on social assistance, given the chance to go out and earn a meaningful dollar, would throw out the social assistance and go to work on a program like fire smart or on a community project funded by the community development fund.

The business we are dealing with here is the need to address the issue and the situation that Yukoners are in right now. The solutions are simple. The government has lots of cash available. A winter works program this winter is not going to break the bank or create a trend that will compromise us in the future if this Minister of Economic Development and this Liberal government are so confident that they are going to rebuild the economy, as they have said time and time again. Because if that is the case, then the need for community development fund expenditures will diminish at some point in the future.

So, the minister is arguing against herself. We on this side of the House in the official opposition are saying - because we have been approached by many, many Yukoners, by municipalities and by First Nation people, asking us to try and do something - "You have the means, it's a matter of choice, and we encourage you to do it. That's why we brought forward the supplementary budget. Will you at least try, through a winter works program this winter, to help all those Yukoners who are in such desperate need? "

Furthermore, no matter what, nothing will be perfect, not even the repackaged new community development fund that this government will bring out, because the Liberal government knows how well it works. What they're trying to do in this review is package it so it becomes a Liberal invention, so that they gain the political kudos.

Now, come on. Why would you want Yukoners to sacrifice so the members opposite can gain the political advantage? That's not acceptable. The money is there, Mr. Chair. The ability is there. Fire smart applications can be brought in within days, and a few days after that point, once the technical review committee - which has a very good set of goal posts in place. Furthermore, there are high priority areas in fire smart needs and there are low priorities. It's not rocket science to figure out. People could be going to work in a matter of days in this territory, and this government would receive great accolades for making that move.

Will the minister now relent and do something in this area? Will she bring forward a supplementary budget that reflects community development fund initiatives and the fire smart program so that Yukoners, especially in rural communities, can at least accrue some benefit to help them survive this winter?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the member opposite has repeatedly made his point. The member opposite has repeatedly referenced economic leadership. Economic leadership is also recognizing that the figures in front of the member opposite are a $33,817,000 deficit. That level of spending is unsustainable. It is clearly demonstrated.

The economic leadership demonstrated by this government in recognizing the deficit situation and dealing with these issues is economic leadership that I, and the individuals on this side of the House, stand behind. The member had four years to demonstrate his economic leadership and that of his party, and Yukoners have spoken. Now they have spoken and given us an opportunity to demonstrate ours. That's what we are doing and that is what we will continue to do.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, in the first place, 57 percent of Yukoners did not vote for the Liberal Party, for this Liberal government.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie:      The member says, "They didn't vote for the NDP." Well, at this point in time, the Liberals are who have the decision making in their hands. Yukoners are asking for these things. This minister refuses to recognize the needs of Yukoners. She is turning her back, especially on rural Yukon. One can only conclude that that is because their support is in Whitehorse.

Mr. Chair, it won't take long for the MLA for Faro to be demanding some community development fund money and some fire smart money, because his constituency will be putting him on notice in short order. They are not going to sit there and twiddle their thumbs all winter long.

Mr. Chair, furthermore, this minister continues to make the argument of a deficit. Yet, a $3-million expenditure this winter for winter works - if this minister is so confident in her ability to rebuild the economy - is not going to impact a deficit trend because the need for winter works programs will diminish. The minister is making our argument.

I ask again, because I feel there are a number of members on the side opposite and in Cabinet who agree with us on this side. They agree that there is something that should be done this winter to help all those Yukoners who need it.

I ask this minister again, will she bring forward a supplementary budget immediately that will reflect those needs? Will she help these Yukoners this winter? She has the means. She has the money. The choice is this minister's. Will she do so?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, what I heard was a request from the member opposite to join Cabinet, and I would certainly have to consult with my caucus on that particular subject.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The members opposite seem absolutely stubborn in their refusal to accept the fact that there is an estimated annual deficit for the year 2000-01 of $33,817,000. And I have told the members opposite and advised them over and over again - and over and over again, including as leader of the official opposition - that the level of spending was unsustainable.

The member opposite also needs to be very aware of the fact that there are pressures in the budget that affect all Yukoners, including health care spending.

We are dealing with those. We are also dealing with the issues of unemployment in our Yukon. It's not just in the communities. We are all faced with this. We on this side of the House have partners who are involved in Yukon daily life. We have constituents we speak with on a regular basis. There are individuals throughout Yukon who are concerned about the Yukon economy. It is not the sole purview of the member opposite to stand and rant about the economy or rant about this government and the decisions we make.

We answer to Yukoners every single day for the decisions we have made and are making. We gave long and careful thought to the construction of this supplementary budget, to what is contained therein and to the needs of Yukoners. We have addressed the fundamental needs of health care and education and the Yukon economy, and we are doing that within the financial means we have available.

The solution of the member opposite is not our solution, and I would respectfully request that the member opposite consider that there are differences between us. On this one point we will agree to disagree.

Mr. Fentie:      It's a sad day when a Premier, a minister, would interpret my asking - as a member of the official opposition and a duly elected member of this Assembly - this minister to help out the many, many Yukoners in need by bringing forward a supplementary to address those needs to be a rant. That's disgusting.

This isn't a rant. I am trying to do my job to help Yukon people who are in need of help. We in the official opposition see a way to have that addressed this winter. We know that there is lots of money. We know that the minister's excuses are simply not going to hold water with Yukon people. They know better. And when they find out this spring that the surplus is going to be, at a bare minimum, $45 million, after they suffered through a hard winter with no work when this government had the ability to do something in areas like fire smart and community development funding, they are not going to be pleased with this Liberal government.

Mr. Chair, it is obviously fruitless trying to convince this cold-hearted government why it is necessary to help Yukoners now, this winter. It's the compassionate thing to do. If this government ever wants to be known as a government that is compassionate, well, they are going to lose that. They are going to lose that by this decision.

I would point something else out: our health care costs are going to increase this winter. They are going to increase maybe by way more than the $3-million injection of capital into a community development fund and fire smart, because people are out of work and people's spirits are at a low, and because of issues developed from that, especially in rural communities. Health care costs will increase because of that high unemployment and that despair that people find themselves in. That's going to happen this winter, and this government can only blame themselves.

One more time, I urge this minister to be compassionate, to think about all those Yukoners who are in need now and who would do anything to work for four months. Will this minister at least set aside her hard view on what she thinks is right and help those people out? The Liberal government has the money. The tools are there. The vehicles for that money to flow are in place. All that it takes is a decision, a compassionate decision by this minister, and many, many Yukoners will be uplifted. Will this minister bring forward a supplementary for winter works now?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the reference to showing a complete lack of respect for individuals as a member of the Legislature - I would suggest that "rant" is mild compared with referring to someone as "without compassion", "cold-hearted", and "stubborn". Members opposite have used words like "incompetent", "failing to understand", "unrepresentative of our communities," and on and on and on. Those are not policy criticisms. Those are personal criticisms. The member opposite has made a criticism of our decision and our management of the funds of this territory - the taxpayers' money - of Yukoners. He has criticized our decisions to not add additional supplementary funding to this particular supplementary budget for the community development fund.

I have heard the criticism, I respect the member opposite has made the criticism, the decision has been made, and my point to the member opposite is neither stubborn nor without compassion. We are choosing a different path to help Yukoners and to work with Yukoners.

While the member certainly is more than welcome to give - and I'm happy to hear it - constructive criticism, this is a particular point where the member and I disagree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, I have never heard so much bafflegab in my entire life, Mr. Chair, as what has come out of this Liberal government during debate this session. All we are hearing are excuses upon excuses upon excuses. The bottom line is that the economy of the Yukon is devastated. We're in a depression.

One of the fastest ways to create some employment this winter is by the use of these three funds. The community development fund has been a tool employed by the previous government. It's a good suggestion, Mr. Chair. The trade and investment fund is another area that could be looked at and utilized. What we're seeing, though, is a lapse. It's a $241,000 lapse in the trade and investment fund. The other area is the fire smart program. That could be used to put Yukoners to work this winter. The other suggestion that the Yukon Party offered, Mr. Chair, was to convene a public/private partnership to look at ways that government spending could enhance employment.

What we currently have is a government that is void of any ideas. They are reluctant to get into any of these funds to stimulate the economy because there has been some criticism of them in the past. Well, in government, praise is usually the absence of criticism. There is always going to be someone who is opposing what you're doing. It doesn't matter what. Right now, those opposing the Liberal government initiatives are fewer and fewer because, number one, Yukoners are having to leave the Yukon to find employment. They are finding employment elsewhere, other than the Yukon. That is a consequence of the policies of the federal Liberals and the Yukon Liberals.

The other area we must look at is that the public, by and large, doesn't care if the government has a surplus or a deficit, as long as they've got a job and their home life is satisfactory and they have money flowing into the home.

More and more in Yukon, that is not occurring, Mr. Chair. Jobs are scarce. Other than government and government-related employment, there's not much going on in the private sector here in the Yukon.

What this Liberal government's position is is that we're taking a different path. Well, fine, Mr. Chair. No one has a quarrel with the Liberals taking a different path. But let's make sure that that path is open, that it's not full of rocks and debris and snow and accumulation of a whole series of things that are impeding the economy of the Yukon.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, to the minister that that path is very full of all sorts of debris impeding the economy of the Yukon. An action needs to be taken and taken very, very quickly. And there seems to be a lack of initiatives by this government. They have the tools at their disposal, and those tools are, number one, they have money. They inherited a surplus. Yes, it's being drawn down by accumulated deficits, but by the time we see the fiscal position of this government on March 31 of this coming year, I'm sure that there will be a great number of lapses and that the financial position is going to be, probably, not much different from what the current position is, in that we'll probably see in the magnitude of $40 million or $50 million in total carry-forward surplus.

Now, the other area that you have to have as a government, other than money, is an idea, an idea that Yukoners will buy into and that will put them to work and stimulate the economy.

None of the initiatives that have worked in the past and been acceptable here in the Yukon, whether it be a public/private partnership to explore ways of spending government money to stimulate the economy, which worked under the Yukon Party, whether it be the trade and investment fund, community development fund or fire smart that worked under the NDP - none of these initiatives are being looked upon with any sort of favour by this government. They're not even being considered, Mr. Chair. What's done is done. We're not even going forward. We're just going to review, review, review and thank you very much for bringing it to our attention. You have made your point, sit down, we're going on our merry way.

Yukoners expected more from this Liberal government, Mr. Chair, than what we're seeing and what we're receiving.

We were told to look favourably upon them because they had this wonderful relationship with Ottawa. The only benefit that's going to probably accrue in the next little while is that the Premier's going to be flying off to China. I don't know, maybe we can establish a chopsticks factory here or something. But the benefits that are going to accrue from the minister flipping off all over the world on the Team Canada trade missions are certainly questionable, given the state of our economy, our dwindling workforce, and the inability of the Minister of Education to train anyone - it just goes on and on and on and on, Mr. Chair.

Every time you turn a corner with this government, it's no. And other than a few political patronage appointments that are extremely well paid, the rest of the Yukon, specifically rural Yukon, is suffering.

Now, this CDF could come into focus and it could benefit Yukoners, as could the fire smart and as could the trade and investment fund.

Let's just look at the black and white. Under capital, under Economic Development, the total revenue was estimated in the 2000-01 budget as being some $3,021,000. There is a windfall profit coming from revenues from oil and gas resources of an additional $4.1 million. The total amount in that department is up by $4.1 million, and yet the government sees its way clear to only spend $2 million of that in the Economic Development portfolio.

I have yet to hear of a sound initiative coming out of this government to put Yukoners back to work this winter. If there is, what is it? Which one of these plans is the government going to use? And why not the community development fund? Why not the fire smart? Why not the trade and investment fund? Why not convene a private/public partnership meeting to see how government spending can be used to enhance the economy and put Yukoners back to work? Because the bottom line is that it is about an economy.

Now, this Premier, as Minister of Economic Development, has done probably the worst job that has ever been demonstrated by any Minister of Economic Development. We are not seeing any initiatives being put forward under this minister, Mr. Chair. And that's appalling. If there is, tell me how many jobs that this minister is creating this winter with this economic development program. Total capital expenditures of some $9.6 million - and it takes an O&M side of it, an administration side of it, of $6.9 million. So where are the jobs being created this winter? Now the minister is probably going to read off the Shakwak jobs and a few others, but by and large, there is a void of jobs in Yukon. Our economy is going backwards.

This minister is not taking any steps to turn it around, and she can't argue that she doesn't have the tools at her disposal. She points to a deficit position. Well, that's just drawing down our bank account, which currently stands at almost $65 million. So what excuse is this Minister of Economic Development going to use next? And what is she going to do to put Yukoners to work now?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I have already answered the question about the number of jobs that are created by this budget and the work that is ongoing throughout the Yukon.

The Yukon economy was not destroyed in the seven or eight months that I have been Minister of Economic Development, and the member opposite knows that. The member opposite stood on his feet and voiced the same criticism of the former Minister of Economic Development and, I'm sure, the minister before that, but the House was not graced with the member's presence at that time.

The member opposite has voiced his criticisms, and I'm certain that the next comments from the member opposite are quite predictable. I have, however, already answered the question.

Chair:  Is there any further debate on the community development fund?

Community Development Fund in the amount of $466,000 agreed to

Mr. Fentie:      Can the minister inform the House if there has been any uptake on this micro loan program as of today?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I met with Dana Naye Ventures as recently as this morning, and I have preliminary figures. I'd like to finalize them before providing them to the member opposite. We're looking in the 13 to 15 range, but I will provide them to both parties in writing following the session.

Micro Loan Program in the amount of $105,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, why are we doing any geological surveys and resource assessments in the Yukon when the minister is determined to create one big park here?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the $64,000 line item in this particular amount is the collective agreement and superannuation increase. I'm pleased to hear the member opposite vote against the people of the Yukon.

Mr. Jenkins:      My question still stands. Why are we doing resource assessment when this minister is determined to create one big park in the Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the $64,000 in this line item is for collective agreement and superannuation increases for the hard-working people of the Yukon. That's what the $64,000 is.

The line item in terms of geological surveys - the geological work by this particular unit in Economic Development has been nationally and internationally recognized, and their work is very much appreciated. In fact, I have had several supportive letters with regard to their work. I took the opportunity this summer to visit with the geologists at work in the field, and their data is instrumental in reviewing areas that are of high mineral potential for the Yukon's future development.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, the question still stands, Mr. Chair. Why are we doing all of these resource assessments when the minister is determined to create one big park here in the Yukon?

Chair:  Mr. Jenkins.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, obviously, Mr. Chair, the minister's not answering, but it would appear that, between the federal Liberals and the Yukon Liberals, all we're seeing being created under this Premier and her Liberal Party is a whole series of parks here in the Yukon. I'm just curious when the next announcement is going to be made of the next park? Perhaps the minister can share that with us, Mr. Chair.

So, what's the need for all these assessments if we're just creating a whole series of parks here? In fact, the only advantage we can see is probably that, down the road after all the parks are created, we can give a contract out to Skookum Asphalt to pave the rest of the Yukon. All there will probably be left is a couple of square kilometres left to pave if you eliminate the bottoms of the rivers and lakes, Mr. Chair. But why are we doing all these assessments, Mr. Chair, if all this minister is going to do is create parks here in the Yukon?

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      I guess the minister's failure to answer that question clearly indicates that that's exactly the case, Mr. Chair.

Chair:  Is there any further debate on geological surveys?

Geological Surveys in the amount of $64,000 agreed to

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Chair, $520,000 was already voted to date on resource assessments. Now, in this supplementary we are adding $105,000. Did we find something with the $520,000 that warranted another $105,000 expenditure or is there a specific area that this money is targeted for?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      For the Member for Watson Lake, $16,000 of it is for collective agreement and superannuation increases; $89,000 is additional fieldwork and a geochemical study. The precise nature of that fieldwork I'll elaborate on for the member opposite in writing, as I'll get the details from the geochemists involved.

Resource Assessments in the amount of $105,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      What's our total exposure for the Faro mine?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, this line item shows a decrease because the memorandum of understanding is not yet in effect, so it's a decrease from the original capital maintenance of the memorandum of understanding. If the member should choose, I can arrange a briefing for him on that.

Mr. Jenkins:      I'm not looking for a briefing. I'm just looking at a position as to what the total exposure is for financial liability to the Government of Yukon for the Faro mine, if the minister can put that in writing and send it over.

Chair:  I believe there is a nod of assent there, so will that be acceptable, Mr. Jenkins?

Mr. Jenkins:      The minister has agreed to do so, Mr. Chair. Is that what I'm given to understand?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Yes, Mr. Chair.

Capital Maintenance Faro Mine in the amount of an underexpenditure of $100,000 agreed to

Mr. Fentie:      Could the minister elaborate on exactly what this is? We, on this side of the House, thought the centennial anniversaries program was kaput, gone, finished. Where is this money going?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Chair, that's a good question. It is very reminiscent of the former Member for Riverdale North.

The Yukon government made the commitment of $500,000 under the centennial anniversaries program in 1995 and an additional $200,000 under the community development fund in 1999, so there were these previous commitments of previous governments out there. The project took several years to meet the conditions of the centennial anniversaries program and construction was delayed until this year. Construction should be completed and the facility opened in the spring of 2001.

This supplementary amount of $424,000 is a revote of money previously approved but not spent.

Mr. Fentie:      A revote to where? Where is this project?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      To my knowledge, it's under construction. I won't be in Teslin until February 6, but that's what I'm advised.

Mr. Fentie:      So, it's Teslin. Our understanding on this side of the House was that this money had already flowed. Was there a reason why it didn't flow as originally planned and is back in this supplementary? Because, as the minister said, it is a revote. Is there a reason why the money didn't flow?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      My understanding was that the project took several years to meet the conditions of CAP, as I have already stated. CAP is the centennial anniversaries program. Construction was delayed until this year.

The Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes has just arrived. Perhaps he would like to provide members of this House the details on this. It is a revote. The supplementary amount is money that has been previously approved by previous governments, but not spent. Perhaps the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes would like to enter into the debate.

Mr. Keenan:      I thank the minister for the offer. Yes, I do have some suggestions. I have just been speaking with the First Nation in this regard. They would like the cash. They would very much like the cash to be there. The cash has been sitting around since 1995.

As a minister, I have worked with the former Economic Development minister to ensure that those funds rolled forward in a government-to-government relationship.

I understand that the department reneged on that. You may check that if you choose. What they have said is that the cash will flow on a percentage basis as it is completed. Now, the territorial government has put in $700,000 - and some change, let's say - on this project.

The Teslin Tlingit Council has put in over $2 million of their own cash because they believe in the community initiative and diversifying the community for the beneficiaries of Teslin, and that includes native and non-native people. There are training programs working there and there are people getting jobs there at this point in time. What we did with the community of Pelly Crossing as a democratic government in our reign - much to the chagrin of the Yukon Party - was treat it as a government-to-government relationship. We said that this is a community need; it's identified, and we agreed with it and we gave them the money to spend as they saw fit.

I would ask the present minister if the present minister would consider forwarding those dollars to the Teslin Tlingit Council so that they may continue with their project. And yes, the minister is absolutely right when she says that it will open in May. So I would ask the minister to be able to consider that as a government-to-government relationship.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      This government is very conscious of making sure that we do maintain respectful government-to government relationships. I thank the member opposite for bringing this to my attention, and we will work on resolving that in the near future.

Mr. Keenan:      I thank the minister.

Centennial Anniversaries Program in the amount of $424,000 agreed to

Mr. Fentie:      Why?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      $3,000 is for collective agreement and superannuation increases, and $244,000 is the balance of the program that is returned to surplus in order that it could be used for such items as the $455,000 in additional funding put into the community development fund. While this program is being reviewed, these monies are being shown as a return to funding in order that we might allocate funds in other areas.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, it's evident, given the fact that this government has now postponed - shut down, reviewing, delaying, cancelling - or doing whatever with the trade investment fund that that's the reason for this money being moved out. It's because they planned on not proceeding with this fund.

Let me point out to the minister that, given the documents she tabled in this House around the trade and investment fund, there is something very evident about those expenditures. This minister has stated that this Liberal government is going to rebuild the economy. Well, obviously, one of the mainstays in rebuilding any economy is for its businesses - entrepreneurs, manufacturers and the people who come up with some sort of economic initiative in this territory - to have the ability to market themselves, what they do, and their products beyond Yukon. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out, either. We only have 30,000 people here. We need to get the markets. The trade and investment fund under the former NDP government was an extremely successful vehicle to do that.

Some of the shining examples we have in this territory today resulting from the trade and investment expenditures are such things as the Yukon Brewery, which is now marketing its product in places as far away as Ontario. And the Member for Faro should well know that another entrepreneur, upon the shutdown of the mine, came up with a brilliant idea - Midnight Sun Plant Food. And through a small expenditure toward Midnight Sun's marketing initiative, we have another successful example, and this Faro entrepreneur is now marketing his product in 1,000 Home Hardware stores across this country.

In doing this, he has created 10 jobs - 10 jobs in a rural community - through his hard work, his initiative, his ideas, and with a small bit of assistance from a Yukon government that had the vision and economic leadership to market his product. Bingo, we have success.

Now, let's look at this a little further. We in the official opposition have brought forward our own supplementary budget to address the need for winter works. Part of that budget is in this area is a $700,000 expenditure in the trade and investment fund. Let's take Midnight Sun Plant Food as an example. If we spent $20,000 on Midnight Sun Plant Food's marketing, which resulted in a successful venture creating 10 jobs in this territory, that means that with a $700,000 expenditure we could have 35 such projects - such successes - in this territory. If we go a little further then, if each one of those is capable of producing 10 jobs and there are 35 projects that could be marketing themselves outside this territory, that's 350 jobs for Yukoners.

My question to the minister is this: why wouldn't the minister continue on with something that has the potential of creating that kind of employment in this territory? Why wouldn't the minister do so?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, my former colleague from Riverside would say that we are re-ploughing tilled ground in that we have already dealt with a number of these issues.

This government has made a choice to review and examine these programs, their successes and areas for improvement. That is what we're doing and that is what we chose to do with these funds.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I say to the minister then, how is it that you are ignoring the fact that a company like Yukon Brewing has an opportunity to break in to one of the toughest markets in this country when it comes to selling its product - beer - in British Columbia. How can this minister stand on her feet and ignore the fact that that may produce a great number of jobs right here in Whitehorse for Yukon people?

The minister's decision is going to make it very difficult for this Yukon company to market its product further than it has today. Furthermore, Midnight Sun Plant Food has an opportunity to go offshore, not only to the United States, but also into the Asian market. Without any assistance from the trade and investment fund, it's going to become a lot more difficult for Midnight Sun Plant Food to increase his market and therefore increase his ability to create jobs for Yukoners.

Will the minister rethink her decision? Continue to review the trade and investment fund but, as we in the official opposition have brought forward, out of her massive surplus of $64 million as of March 2000, will she put forward a supplementary of $700,000 to assist Yukon companies in further marketing themselves outside the Yukon in order to help create employment for Yukon people? Will she bring forward that supplementary?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I've already answered the question.

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Chair, the minister didn't answer the question. The minister came up with some loopy Liberal comparison that we're replowing tilled ground. We're talking about economic development; we're talking about job creation; we're talking about very, very successful examples of what trade and investment funding did for Yukon companies who, without it, may not be marketing their products outside this territory. And I asked the minister whether she will, given those successes and given the potential of trade and investment in this territory for Yukon businesses, bring forward a supplementary that reflects a $700,000 expenditure to help Yukon companies market their products outside the Yukon, therefore helping to create employment in this territory for Yukon people. Will she bring that supplementary forward? Yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, this supplementary budget does create work for Yukon people. It does meet the needs of Yukon people; it does address them. And I have already responded to the member opposite that there are issues and successes and questions surrounding not simply this particular fund, but others - the community development fund. And I'm sure the member will make the same argument with the tourism marketing fund. This government has examined the funding that was available, lived up to the commitment to Yukoners, and we are looking at these funds. That is our task.

The supplementary budget that we are bringing forward is the one before the member opposite, and I will not get into discussing individual successes nor individual criticisms of the funds.

Mr. Fentie:      The minister, as stated, did bring forward the budget that the New Democratic government had brought in. She did honour those expenditures, as the documents she tabled here reflected, but then immediately pulled the rug out from under those people. She left them in the lurch, turned her back on them like she has on so many other things, turned her back on Yukon Brewing, turned her back on Midnight Sun Plant Food, turned her back on the forest industry in southeast Yukon, and turned her back on the people of Mayo and the Mayo school. The list goes on and on and on.

Mr. Chair, I asked a yes-or-no question. Will the minister bring forward a supplementary budget of $700,000 expenditure for trade and investment so that Yukon businesses and companies can further market their products outside this territory, helping to create jobs that benefit the Yukon people this winter? Will she do that - yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the supplementary budget this government is bringing forward is the one before the members opposite.

Mr. Fentie:      The minister's answer is testimony, Mr. Chair, to how little this minister cares about the plight that Yukon people are in. It's also testimony to a serious lack of vision when it comes to the Yukon economy. It also is testimony to this unbridled desire to eradicate everything the former government has accomplished and done on behalf of Yukon people. And this Liberal government will pay the price for that in the very near future.

This minister refuses, whether it be through community development funding, whether it be through fire smart funding, or whether it be through the trade and investment fund, to do anything now, this winter, to assist Yukoners.

Let the record show that after repeated questioning and encouragement and urging to try and do something for those Yukoners who are in desperate straits, this cold-hearted government - this closed, secretive government, this government that could care less about anyone outside of their support base - has simply ignored the requests and turned its back on all Yukoners who find themselves in need this winter. I think the minister's answers in this regard speak for themselves. The Yukon public will not forget, and this territory is in deep, deep trouble under this minister's economic leadership.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, I couldn't help but listen to the debate and then listen to the responses from the Premier, the minister responsible for Economic Development. I'm very, very concerned by her response.

What she is saying to the House is that she has no confidence in the ability of Yukoners, in many, many walks of life, to succeed and no confidence in the projects that currently have been successful but want to go further - we have no confidence in them, and we're not going to be funding them.

And there are a number of very, very prominent examples of success stories of Yukon manufacturers exporting Yukon-manufactured products out of the Yukon. But this minister is saying that this government has no confidence in these people and initiatives - no confidence in the brewery, no confidence in Midnight Sun Plant Food. "We're not going to fund them any further. And furthermore, we're going to reduce that line item by some $241,000." Reduce it, save it - because we're not going to spend it. "We're going to put this whole initiative under review."

So, I'd just like to thank the minister. It's becoming more and more clear as we get into the position of her government - it's becoming more and more clear all the time - that the minister's confidence in Yukoners does not exist. It is void, and she is not going to fund any of these initiatives whatsoever because she does not believe in Yukoners. That's a fine statement for a Premier of this territory.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:  Let the record reflect that that was not my statement, it was the member opposite's statement and were I to interject on a point of order, it would have been merely seen as a dispute between members.

Trade and Investment Fund in the amount of an underexpenditure of $241,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      Now, what kind of infrastructure is the minister developing? Is this a series of political patronage appointments for her Liberal colleagues?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I can advise the member opposite that this funding has been utilized for the Department of Economic Development to work with other departments in the Government of Yukon with respect to the air access initiative, spearheaded by the Department of Tourism. A number of departments have cooperated by funding this initiative.

The Yukon Entrepreneurship Centre has been funded under this line item. There have been a number of legal costs incurred by the department, including those associated with the development of oil and gas regulations. And there is also funding to cover the port costs from the previous government and the extension of the options by this government.

Mr. Fentie:      I would like to briefly explore with the minister the decision on the ports. Now, I don't think that there is any argument that a vision brought forward by a previous government to ensure and guarantee that the Yukon has access to tidewater for all time was not a vision of merit. However, unfortunately, given all the work that had been done by the previous government, when this Liberal government came to office, they expended more money on extending these options so that they could find a way and an excuse to get out of it, because, again, it's another example of them eradicating any of the work that the former government has done.

And then we find out that this minister, this Premier, has compromised and possibly traded away our ability to access tidewater by a simple agreement that says, "We will share information with Alaska and the Chamber of Commerce in Skagway, and we will have mutual press releases." What kind of Mickey Mouse, lame-duck agreement is this?

This is a serious issue. This government is committed, by their very own platform in the election, to developing infrastructure. Why would this minister jeopardize this territory, its future, and landlock this territory? Because there are no guarantees that, without ownership, we'll ever have access to tidewater through Alaska. How can this minister say to the Yukon public that it's okay, we're going to have mutual press releases, and we're going to share information?

The minister should know well that when Curragh Resources was trying to get up and running and needed to get out through the port of Skagway, it was a very difficult time for the Yukon government in dealing with Alaska once they sensed our need. They played hardball, and there's no reason to believe they won't do the same again. We had an opportunity to guarantee ourselves that access.

Furthermore, if this minister at some point realizes this dramatic error in judgement in how it's going to negatively impact this territory in its future, especially economically, and if this minister would want to rethink and change that decision and suddenly purchase that property, we know for a fact that today the cost of that property has risen through the roof.

Can this minister explain to this House, firstly, why such an error in judgement was made and, secondly, can she assure this House that we will, when needed, have access to tidewater through the port of Skagway?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the member opposite ought to know that this initiative was started. The option on the port in Haines was secured in October 1999 and the option on the port in Skagway was secured in August 1999.

The April election occurred four days prior to the expiry of the original option on the Haines property. This government did not make a decision in haste. We extended the options for a period of time in order to fully evaluate all of the work that had been prepared on these options and all of the information that had been gathered. We not only examined that information, Mr. Chair, but also sought partners in such an endeavour, should the Yukon government proceed.

We investigated partnership with First Nations, with partners in southern Canada and with the business community. No one was able, financially, to come to the table. And the cost of development and proceeding - this was simply a piece of land in Skagway, as the member knows, and a dock in Haines -was prohibitively expensive for this government. And our infrastructure commitment is for infrastructure in the territory.

The member opposite makes much of his experience in government in terms of negotiating and trying to deal with the reopening of the mine at Faro. The member opposite isn't the only one in this Legislature with that sort of experience. We thought long and hard as a government about pursuing these options and, in the overall context of the Government of Yukon's financial picture, decided not to at this time. And, yes, I have every confidence in speaking not only with Yukoners and Yukon business people but with our American neighbours, as well that, yes, we will be able to maintain our access to tidewater. I have every confidence in that.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, it's little comfort that this minister has every confidence, because Yukoners know differently. They know that this is a huge gamble. They know that we have lost a golden opportunity and they know that if we ever in the future want to solidify and assure ourselves access to tidewater through any kind of ownership, it's going to cost a heck of a lot more than it was going to today.

Furthermore, when the minister states that she couldn't find any businesses in this territory who are financially capable of entering into a partnership in a purchase of the port options in Alaska, surprise, surprise. We're in an economic depression. There are no businesses in the Yukon capable of entering into something like that. The whole purpose of it, though, was to ensure that in the future our economic fortunes would continue to grow and diversify.

I want to point something else out to this minister, who just recently cut a ribbon at a secondary manufacturing facility in Whitehorse. Some of the product that they're going to develop - and hopefully they will be successful in this area - will be Japanese-grade product. Now, how are we going to get it to Japan if we can't get through Alaska - shoot it out of a cannon?

The only choice, then, is to go all the way to Vancouver. We have lost our competitive edge. We are approximately 1,000 miles closer to the Asian market than the port of Vancouver. That gives Yukon manufacturers a huge, competitive advantage if we have guaranteed access through the port of Skagway.

It has happened before, whether it be ore concentrate or Japanese sawed logs. To Japan - we in this territory have kept a port in Skagway very busy. And if we lose that ability, it's going to severely restrict and compromise our economic future. So let the record show that, no matter what the minister states as good reasons and rationale for this decision, it is testimony to a severe lack of vision and economic leadership.

Mr. Jenkins:      Actually, the Premier is just avoiding the question of whether or not we need a port. The real reason why we don't need any port access is because as soon as the Yukon becomes one big park, we'll have nothing to export and will no longer have need for a port. Coming more and more into focus is the position of the federal Liberal government and the Yukon Liberal government.

Infrastructure Development in the amount of $540,000 agreed to

Chair:  We will now proceed to the Department of Finance, which for our purposes starts on page 6-3.

Department of Finance

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the department is requesting $361,000 in additional expenditures. These monies are largely for the impact of negotiated wage increases and the superannuation rate changes. There is also a provision for the cost of a Land Claims Secretariat employee who is on temporary assignment to the Department of Finance and for some recoverable work on native taxation studies.

Members will note that investment income is projected to be much higher than the sum in the main estimates. This is principally a result of the accumulated surplus being higher than anticipated at the time the main estimates were being prepared. There's no bottom-line impact to this additional revenue, since it is offset on a one-to-one basis in our formula grant.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      I just need some supplementary information, Mr. Chair. I would like the Minister of Finance to provide me with a list of all of the numbered companies in which Yukon has an interest and what the extent and involvement of their interests are.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the member opposite is, I believe, making reference to the only initiative of this type, which is 123. However, I will provide the member with a written response.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, just off the bat, Mr. Chair, there's the numbered company that the Yukon set up to flow the immigrant investor funds through to Connect Yukon, and then there's 123. I just want to know for sure how many numbered companies Yukon has an involvement in and just what the involvement is, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, we'll survey the Department of Justice and double-check on that.

Mr. Jenkins:      And is that an undertaking to provide that information?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Yes, Mr. Chair.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair:  Are there any questions on the operation and maintenance recoveries?

Are there any questions on the revenues?

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures for the Department of Finance in the amount of $361,000 agreed to

Chair:  Is there any general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      As a matter of interest, the City of Dawson has requested loans from the Government of the Yukon. Just when is that going to flow - loans for third parties? Is that going to be forthcoming, or are they going to have to shut down the projects underway?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, we have not, as of yet, received the formal request from the City of Dawson. Certainly, when we receive it, we will act upon it expeditiously.

Loan Capital in the amount of $1,000 agreed to

Chair:  Do members wish to take a five-minute recess?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Chair:  We will take a five-minute recess then.

Recess

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

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, I am pleased to provide an overview of the Government Services supplementary estimates.

Overall, the department is forecasting an increase of $1,838,000 in O&M expenditures, $236,000 of which is being offset by increased recoveries. In addition, $739,000 is due to collective agreements and superannuation cost increases. Two $120,000 contributions were paid, one to the Kwanlin Dun First Nation to coordinate employment and training opportunities for First Nations during the continuing care facility's construction, and the other was to the Miles Canyon Railway Society for trolley operation last summer.

An increase of $38,000 was added to an existing contribution agreement with the Technology Innovation Centre, which was a partner in hosting the first very successful information technology conference this fall.

The remaining $585,000 financed new leased space, CRTC hearings, maintenance of a line service delivery, property insurance increases, and IT business continuity plan testing.

The capital expenditures are increasing by $25,000. However, as you are aware, the responsibility of the Connect Yukon and the rural telecommunications projects was transferred to the Department of Community and Transportation Services in the spring of 2000.

The budget transfer of $2,900,000 and the respective recovery of $200,000 are reflected in this supplementary. Essentially, the department's capital expenditures were increased by $2,925,000. Two-thirds of this figure represents a revote, or carry-forward funding, of projects budgeted but not completed in the last fiscal year.

New funding of $135,000 is for the cost of a collective agreement and superannuation increases. $302,000 is a result of an increased business incentives rebate, and $500,000 is to restore the information technology funding for capital maintenance upgrade and replacement of our new central information technology infrastructure.

The budget for the current fiscal year reduced the government-wide capital allocation by $2.2 million from 1999-2000. This amount, although only a partial restoration, is the first step toward ensuring that appropriate funding levels are established for IT. It is only with adequate funding that government can support both current and future initiatives of service delivery improvements to the public and generate jobs, innovation and growth in Yukon's high-tech sector.

At this time, I will be pleased to answer any questions members may have.

Mr. Keenan:      Certainly, Mr. Chair, I'd like to start with the IT scenario. It seems to me, Mr. Chair, that most of the dollars put into the supplementary budget are for government spending on government. It looks to me like there were deputy ministers and other folks out and about within the departments who got a lot of their wish lists for Christmas a bit early. So to me that really doesn't mean IT spending. I'd like to get the minister's opinion.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, I'm not really clear on the question that was asked. Maybe the member opposite can rephrase his question with a little bit more clarity.

Mr. Keenan:      Yes, I can, certainly. We're spending over $500,000 in the supplementary budget on computer screens. We do have funds that are out there that are for the technology end of things. I see no money in there. I want to know the reason why.

Does the minister consider computer screens in offices within this government to be IT, or does the minister still wish to carry on, and if he does, why is there not any money in the funds?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, the monies that have been plugged in - they are part of IT. And it's where all the infrastructure and equipment and that - it is being plugged into. That's part of the technology.

Mr. Keenan:      Thank you, Mr. Chair, but that does not answer the question. I would still maintain that this is spending money on government. We do have other avenues out there, such as training trust funds. Is there anything new in the minister's mind that he could do to enhance IT spending outside of government and if the minister does, then how does the minister plan to do that?

Hon. Mr. Jim: We can say that we are looking at other ways of cutting costs - ways of telecommuting, so to speak. We are looking at other ways in which Government Services can use a one-window approach on computers, whereas there are licensing permits and different other programs and bill payments. We are looking at other avenues in which we can advance the use of information technology.

Mr. Keenan:      Then if I could carry on just a bit more on just that one particular subject. How does the minister feel that he is going to encourage the need in the private sector for people to expand their horizons? How does the minister plan on doing that?

Hon. Mr. Jim: First of all, I think that by utilizing technological equipment, you'll need skills either from private sector vendors, such as PricewaterhouseCoopers, Lane Systems Group, Maltby and Associates. These are specialized skills that are set. We impact the marketing of computers and information technology. Not only do we do that, but we are also encouraging the use of telecommuting systems with Government Services. We are probably, in a national sense, one of the fortunate ones who are looking at IT as a ways and means of cutting our rural and remote problems in the communities.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Chair, what the minister has spoken of are - I know they must get awful tired of hearing this - their democrat initiatives. What I specifically asked was if there was anything new on the horizon for people who are outside of government. So, it's not government spending money on government but people who are actually in the IT field outside of government not getting the spillovers or the leftovers off the plates of government. What is there in the minister's mind in the future for him to be able to enhance that industry in the Yukon Territory? Does the minister have any futuristic plans? Does the minister have any dreams, does he have any visions, and how is he going to implement them?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, again, we have been establishing the one-window approach with IT. We're looking at probably a directory, for instance, so you can look at governments, and it will have a compilation of both municipal, territorial, provincial and federal governments as a one-window approach as a way of cutting time and effort in finding out where it is that you can get your information from within government.

We are looking again at the one-window approach, and that is something that I see as a real plus for this government.

Mr. Keenan:      This will be the last question on this, because I still haven't got an answer to the question. What I'm hearing is briefing book material. It's departmental progression, I guess you could say.

I was wondering if the minister himself, in a political position or political thinking - because we are politicians, and politicians are encouraged and must show leadership. They have to be at least 10 years ahead of themselves or they have to back up and say where we're going.

This has clearly and purely always been the essence of government. This government, especially the Health and Social Services minister, seems to have hit a speed bump in thinking on this thing, so I would encourage the Health minister to certainly listen to what I'm saying because I am going to get to him next.

I do have these types of questions. So, politically thinking, how is this government going to expand on the IT for the future? How are the people who are listening out there, the entrepreneurs, going to feel encouragement?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Certainly, Mr. Chair, we do have vision. We have vision, and that goes four or five years down the road. I can agree with the member opposite on that.

The thing right now is, in principle right now, to try to keep up with the rate and capacity of development and of new, innovative equipment that keeps leaving us so far behind. I would say that in order to keep up with the fast pace of the development of information technology, then we must keep on top of what is available - fibre optics, new modems, new high-speed Internet systems. And we are keeping on top of it.

In the future, we are looking at ways the computer systems can best serve the needs of Government Services.

Mr. Keenan:      I imagine it's similar to the Department of Health and Social Services then, in that it has got a 10-year vision, but we still haven't filled in the blanks. I certainly got the response to that now.

I would like to talk about the CRTC hearing. I understand that it took $114,000 for the consulting and printing costs associated with the presentation.

At this time I would like to point out that after the minister did go back - I know the minister says he didn't go back. But after it was pointed out from this side of the House, in a presentation by my colleague, the Member for Kluane, that what was noticeably absent was no protests to - I believe - the $5 charge that he was looking for and that the periphery of Whitehorse, such as Tagish, Marsh Lake, et cetera, would still be subject to long-distance rates. It looks like it's going to be different at that point in time now.

So, I would like to know if the minister can give me a breakdown on the $114,000 and at this point in time acknowledge that it was working in partnership with the official opposition and together for the people of the Yukon that we came through on this.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, the member opposite is correct, it is $114,000. Much of it was spent on consulting and advertising costs associated with the government's participation in CRTC hearings.

Mr. Keenan:      I asked the minister for a breakdown. I'd appreciate a written breakdown on the $114,000. And the minister never answered my second question. I'd like to ask that again. Will the minister at this point in time acknowledge that it was by working in partnership with this House and the official opposition that we were able to identify that people could not afford the $5 increase, and that people within the periphery of Whitehorse should not be subject to long-distance phone call charges. And it took this side of the House's presentation to the CRTC to get that acknowledged. It was after the fact that the minister then stepped up to the plate and said he agreed. I'd like acknowledgement of that, please.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, we've went through this once before earlier on in our session - spring session or the fall session - and at that time, the member opposite did raise the question. However, it was stated that we did make our application and we did make our presentation to the CRTC hearing. There was nothing done after the fact.

Mr. Keenan:      So much for working in partnership. The opposite side extends and says we'd like to extend the olive branch. We want to hear your ideas. We want to consult. We want to review. Yet, when there is something that's brought forward, not in a mean-spirited way, but in a camaraderie-type way and it is not acknowledged, well, Mr. Chair, that's appalling. Mr. Chair, that is absolutely appalling.

I know how the opposite side of the House holds Mr. Mostyn of the Yukon News in such high regard for his accurate reporting, but I would like to point out that it was also Mr. Mostyn, in the newspaper, that did point this out to the public at large.

So, Mr. Chair, I would like to take the time now to thank Mr. Mostyn for rightfully pointing that out to the people in the Yukon Territory, and especially to the people that are affected in the surrounding areas and in the communities. For it was the New Democratic Party, under the guise of our Member for Klondike, that brought this forward. Thank God for the Member for Kluane for bringing that forward.

So, Mr. Chair, I'll never get the opposite side to acknowledge that we do want to work together, that we can work together, and that we're capable of working together, but there should be recognition.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, I do recognize that, yes, there are possibilities and that there are possibilities of working together. I'm sure that there are a lot of people who have actually seen water coming from rocks and that there, but there are possibilities out there.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Chair, while the member's stumbling around in the valley bottoms and not knowing that you can get water from rocks - it's blood that you can't squeeze from rocks. So I correct the member opposite, and maybe one day during this Liberal government's very short tenure, through constant and persistent squeezing, we will be able to squeeze some blood from the stones that are opposite. But only time will tell.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to talk about red-tape reduction. Is the red-tape reduction thermometer still up at the T.C. Richards Building?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Nope.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Chair, that does tell me that when the New Democrats were in power, they had a vision that red tape would come down. And red tape did come down.

I remember that, when I was a member of the Cabinet - I see the Member for Laberge is sitting up there grinning and chuckling again - we reduced, we reduced, and we reduced. And now, I guess the chambers feel, well, like me - appalled that there's a Liberal government in place and feels that red tape is not going to go down. And what have they done? They took the thermometer down because they have no vision or they have no hope for the future.

Mr. Chair, if that's not the case, then what's this government going to do other than implement this NDP initiative on red tape? What is the member's vision?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Chair, at the present time, again, we're looking at visions. We really don't need a thermometer to say that we haven't impacted the red-tape program.

And at this present time, the components of the service leadership include the services leadership program, a service-quality training course for government employees, combined with a hands-on workshop designed to find concrete ways to improve public service.

We also have the universal change of address system - a one-window approach - allowing citizens and businesses to change their address with multiple departments using only one request form. This system is now in effect.

We have the blue pages project, which is redesigning the government's phone number listings in the Northwestel's phone book using common sense subject headings, with territorial, federal, municipal and perhaps First Nations governments all being listed together in one index to make it easier and qu