Whitehorse, Yukon

Speaker:      I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      It is with deep respect and great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to the Reverend Deacon Effie Mary Linklater, who passed away peacefully in Old Crow on November 24, 2000.

Born to Neil and Julia McDonald on December 27, 1915, the Reverend Linklater was the granddaughter of Archdeacon Robert McDonald and the eldest of seven children.

Together with her husband, Archie Linklater, whom she married in August 1931, she raised seven children and two grandchildren.

It was the strength of her heritage, the traditional lifestyle she enjoyed, the love of her family, the faith of her friends, and her devotion to God that brought Mrs. Linklater to the pinnacle of her life.

As a young teen, she had expressed an interest in doing church work but marriage and family took precedence. She began her formal church work in 1981 and was ordained as a deacon in January 1989 at St. Simon's Anglican Church, the Old Log Church in Whitehorse.

Effie Linklater touched the lives of many people, devoting much of her time and energy spreading the word of God throughout Yukon communities. Bishop Terry Buckle remembers her dedicated, committed life and her care for people, especially her fondness for the people of Ross River, with whom she worked for a time. It was her gentle spirit and keen sense of humor that attracted young and old alike to share the warmth and wisdom of her presence. And just being in her presence was an experience. She didn't have to say anything. She radiated an inner peace and happiness. I am really going to miss her.

Many Yukoners do not realize that she was instrumental and a pioneer in the development of the territorial ski-training program undertaken by Father Mouchet in Old Crow in the early 1960s. In large part, her countless hours of volunteer work contributed to the pride and distinction felt by the Vuntut Gwitchin athletes, some of whom went on to represent the Yukon in cross-country skiing championships.

There is one of many special places that the Vuntut Gwitchin call their own, and that is Crow Flats. It was there that Mrs. Linklater found her serenity - or in her words, "the best medicine" for her. There she relaxed and thoroughly enjoyed the fresh, clean air, long walks, listening to the birds, watching muskrats swim and the beauty of her surroundings. She marvelled at how close to God she felt whenever she was there. So now we say goodbye to yet another respected elder. Those who knew her or knew of her and those of us who loved her wish her a beautiful journey.

Thank you.

Ms. Netro:      On behalf of the official opposition it is my honour today to pay a special tribute to Effie Linklater. She passed away peacefully on Friday, November 24, 2000, in Old Crow. She was born to Shitzie Neil and Shitzoo Julia McDonald on December 27, 1915. She was the granddaughter of Archdeacon McDonald and she was the eldest of seven children.

To many of us, she was our quiet, strong, support to her unspoken love and her prayers. She was always encouraging us to meet our challenges with dignity and upholding our strong Gwitchin values.

Auntie Effie devoted much of her time spreading the word of God throughout the Yukon and to many of the places where she travelled. She touched the lives of many.

We appreciated her support and admired her courage and her strength. She was a great teacher and her lessons will always remain close in our hearts. Her leadership in her services to the church reinforce in us that faith is the foundation for our personal and professional lives.

She leaves us a living legacy that life out on the land is part of our spiritual healing. She loved to share her stories about her time out on the land with us.

Our lives have been really enriched because of the time she spent with us. She will be sadly missed by her family and friends throughout this nation. However, we know she is in a good place.

Mahsi'cho.

Speaker:      Are there any introductions of visitors?

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Netro:      It is my pleasure today to bring our attention to the gallery, to some of the visitors that we have today from Old Crow.

First, I would like to introduce Chief Joe Linklater, my nephew Greg Charlie, my fiancé Ernie Peter, my friend and relative, Lu Tizya, her daughter Erika, Linda Netro, and her husband Chuck Hendrie.

Speaker:      Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, I have a legislative return to Mr. Gary McRobb, November 30, home care support.

I have a second legislative return on compassionate travel to Mr. Gary McRobb on the same date.

I have a third legislative return to Mr. Gary McRobb on group homes and operating cost and number of people housed.

I have a fourth legislative return on senior elder care facility for Haines Junction for Mr. McRobb on November 30.

I also have the following: another legislative return on child care subsidy for Mr. McRobb, again, on November 30; another legislative return on the pioneer utility grant for Mr. McRobb; another legislative return on the Haines Junction community consultation regarding physician services for Mr. McRobb; another legislative return on the Technical Review Committee, again for Mr. McRobb; and the final legislative return on the Canadian health and social transfer, again for Mr. McRobb for the same date.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling the Yukon Housing Corporation's annual report for the year ended March 31, 2000.

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

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) the settlement and implementation of outstanding land claims is essential for the economic, social and political well-being of the Yukon Territory; and

(2) the Yukon Liberal Government has identified the settlement of land claims as its top priority; and

(3) transboundary land claims involving the Yukon and British Columbia require particular attention to address the issues of reciprocity between the two jurisdictions; and

(4) settlement of these transboundary claims will require clear negotiating mandates from the political leadership of all governments involved; and

(5) it is in the interests of the Yukon that all other affected parties make substantive progress on these land claims while there is a government in British Columbia that is committed to the treaty-making process; and

THAT this House urges the Premier to meet with the Premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on a priority basis, to develop a mutually-agreeable process for negotiating a successful resolution to these transboundary claims for the benefit of all parties.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that a large, overweight, bearded man wearing a red and white suit and riding in a sleigh driven by reindeer, one of which has a red nose, should visit the home of every little boy and girl living in Yukon on December 25, 2000.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Chair:  Are there any further notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I am pleased to advise the House and to bring all members up to date that the B.C./Yukon reciprocal fishing agreement has been completed. As noted in my previous statement in November, I advised that I would be announcing the details in conjunction with my counterpart in British Columbia. This announcement took place yesterday. This is the first transboundary lake agreement signed by British Columbia. Renewable Resources staff have worked hard and diligently to get this agreement in place. We hope that this will lead to other cooperative agreements.

Starting April 1, 2001, Yukoners who hold a valid Yukon freshwater fishing licence will be able to fish in all parts of Lake Bennett, Laidlaw, Morley, Tagish and Teslin lakes, as well as the Rancheria and Swift rivers and their tributaries without having to obtain a separate B.C. fishing licence. I am sure the anglers of the Yukon will be pleased that this long-awaited agreement is in place. It will certainly be appreciated by those Yukoners with recreation properties on these lakes.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:      I would like to, first of all, thank the minister for recognizing yet another fantastic NDP initiative, hook, line and sinker. It's too bad that they didn't bite on other initiatives like the Mayo school or winter works, Mr. Speaker. However, today the government issued a joint press release, so I would question the need to use valuable House time for what is essentially a reannouncement.

We in this House already discussed a ministerial statement on this same matter on November 8. It was interesting to note that, at that time, the minister promised a joint press release within a week. So, perhaps an apology is in order for being several weeks late.

It really looks like this Liberal government has dried up on any new announcements this year and doesn't have anything substantial to say. For the past month and a half, the Liberals have been wasting the time of this House. Obviously, it would be hoping for too much to expect them to improve on what is, hopefully, the last day of this sitting.

Does this minister expect to bring in a ministerial statement and a Liberal press release every time a fishing regulation is passed or, perhaps, whenever a fish is caught, Mr. Speaker, or maybe whenever the big one gets away?

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this government has let the big one slip away all right, by sitting on a $64-million surplus and by failing to provide Yukoners with jobs this winter.

Mr. Jenkins:      This ministerial statement says nothing new. It just confirms what we knew was going to happen. Perhaps it would be more appropriate now for the minister to make arrangements for that fishing licence issued in the Yukon to be valid in Alberta, as we have more and more Yukoners moving to Alberta all the time - more than ever before, Mr. Speaker.

Why don't we now concentrate on the other initiatives with B.C. that are causing an impediment for Yukoners, such as on motor transport so truckers can operate in B.C. in the same manner as B.C. truckers can operate in the Yukon.

To reannounce an announcement that has been announced before - and that's probably referred to in this House as the Trevor Harding amendment - is one thing, but let's get on to the proper business.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The member opposite, the Member for Klondike, is absolutely right. And we are hoping, and we have full confidence, that this government will be able to make further agreements and announcements in this House with respect to additional agreements with B.C. in the future.

This agreement, though, has been dangled in front of Yukoners since 1995, and we've completed the deal. We landed it, Mr. Speaker. I am shocked and amazed - I'll say that again. I have taken lessons from the Minister of Tourism. I am shocked and amazed at the conduct and comments of the Member for Kluane. Oh, I forgot a word - and I am astonished that the members opposite are fishing for credit for this agreement.

I would like to point out to the members opposite that both the Yukon Party and the NDP governments missed the boat by failing to reel in any agreement. For more than five years, Yukoners have been on the hook, waiting for this deal to be struck. We on this side of the House - we, the Liberals - have got that agreement. We have reeled in the big one. Yukon anglers will be pleased that we have netted the deal, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:      This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fentie:      My question today is for the minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development.

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government has been left with a sizeable surplus of $64 million. There's a great need in this territory for people to go to work this winter. The official opposition has brought forward a very well-thought-out supplementary budget, with the community development fund injection of $2 million. Will this minister follow that example, bring forward another supplementary with a $2-million injection into the community development fund, which will put Yukoners across this territory to work this winter?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to answer this question yet again for the Member for Watson Lake.

This government has, as tabled in the supplementary budget recently in this House, in excess of a $30-million deficit. It is a level of spending that is unsustainable. While the member opposite says that they are well-thought-out, to use his words, when the supplementary was tabled in this House, that supplementary was ruled out of order. If it was so well-thought-out, it would have been in order.

This government is managing the budget of the Yukon - the taxpayers' dollars of the Yukon - wisely. And we are managing them in a manner that builds on our priorities: settling land claims; devolution; rebuilding Yukon's economy, which includes jobs for Yukoners; and dealing with such issues of priority to Yukoners as health care and education.

Question re:  Fire smart program

Mr. Fentie:      Well, that answer was no to all those Yukoners who are in desperate need of work this winter. So, let me try again with this minister.

The fire smart program is a proven successful vehicle to put Yukoners to work in this territory. Again, the supplementary budget that the official opposition has a million-dollar injection into the fire smart program. This million-dollar injection, at approximately $50,000 per application, would put 20 applications into service, which would equate six workers per application to 100 Yukoners working for four months this winter across this territory.

Will this minister do the right thing, take a million dollars out of that significant and substantial surplus and put a million dollars into the fire smart program to put those 180 Yukoners to work this winter? Yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, will this minister do the right thing and manage the territory's finances in a way that is sustainable, that looks to rebuilding Yukon's economy? Absolutely. That's what this minister is doing.

I would remind the member opposite that we have tabled an annual deficit in excess of $33 million. That equates to a deficit budget of $1,000 for every individual in the Yukon, and that level of spending is unsustainable. The member opposite stands up and says, "Well, just add a million dollars to that. Just add to what is an unsustainable level of spending and don't worry about and don't bother with the very good work your government is doing in terms of working with First Nations, working with other Yukoners, to ensure that there is oil and gas exploration work this winter, that there is ongoing work in the exploration field with the mining community, that there is ongoing work in terms of film production and commercial production in the Yukon, and that there is a sustainable economy in the Yukon."

That's what we're working on. We are rebuilding the Yukon's economy.

Question re:   Land claims, creation of parks

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

At the 28^th Geoscience Forum held in Whitehorse on November 30, the Premier was quoted as saying, "We're focusing our attention as a government on positive action that will renew the mining industry so that it can be a key contributor to our economic well-being. Our government is listening to what you have to say, eager to hear from you, and most of all we are looking forward to working with you."

Now, at the very time that the Premier was uttering those words, she was aware that 2,739 square kilometres were being withdrawn from staking and a new park was being created, which included mining claims owned by Archer Cathro.

When I asked the Premier on December 12 about more bad news for the mining industry and having yet more mining claims engulfed by parks or special management areas in the six other unresolved settlements, the Premier admitted, through her silence, that this was going to happen.

When is the Premier going to tell the mining industry this bad news? Will it be after the Cordilleran Roundup and her attendance there, announcing that she is all buddy-buddy with the mining industry? When is it going to be?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, the very premise of the member opposite's question is incorrect. My silence can be interpreted as complete disgust with the member opposite's question, Mr. Speaker, because the member has put a misinterpretation on my non-answer.

The member opposite is trying to suggest that this government does not support land claims when, in fact, it's the member opposite. The member opposite is referring to the Asi Keyi special management area, which was negotiated as part of the Kluane First Nation land claim - one of seven outstanding land claims that this government is working very hard to resolve.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, there's a word for a person who says one thing and then does the opposite, but I can't use that word in the House here today, Mr. Speaker. It's unparliamentary.

Does the Premier view the inclusion of mining claims in parks as part of a positive action that will renew the mining industry, when she mentions that in her speech to the Geoscience Forum?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      This Premier and this government are very committed to the settlement of land claims, as is the mining industry, I might add. And I would invite the member opposite to listen very carefully to what the mining industry has to say.

The special management area - the Kluane First Nation land claim - is part of the settlement of that land claim. It is a settlement that we're working toward, which the member opposite clearly does not support.

Mr. Jenkins:      On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we're very supportive of the settlement of First Nation land claims, but what we want is the minister to be up front with all parties. That's all.

Now, let's look at Archer Cathro. They voluntarily gave up their mining claims in the Tombstone area and they now have more of their claims being included in this new Asi Keyi Park.

Will the minister be apologizing to Archer Cathro for the manner that the mining situation is being addressed here in the Yukon? Will she at least do that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The only individuals who deserve an apology are members of this House, for the member opposite's comments about them. The issue for us as legislators is to deal with the issues of policy. And the policy of this government and our commitment is to the settlement of seven outstanding land claims - and that is what we are doing. One of those land claims includes a special management area known as the Asi Keyi - or Grandfather's Place - special management area. It is part of the settlement of a land claim and the member opposite has tried repeatedly in this House to suggest that we tear that up, that we not sign, that we somehow not proceed with the commitment that was made at the land claims table. That, to me, Mr. Speaker, speaks volumes about that member opposite's lack of understanding and lack of appreciation for this land claim, which is very important.

Question re:   Alaska Highway pipeline project training programs

Ms. Netro:      My question is for the Minister of Education. The Yukon's changing economy will require workers to develop a variety of new job skills. If the Alaska Highway pipeline becomes a reality, specialized training to create a skilled Yukon workforce will need to start soon. The official opposition's supplementary budget allocated $900,000 for a new training trust fund so that the Yukon workers will be ready for the new economic opportunities.

Will the minister support a new supplementary budget that would set aside $900,000 from the $64-million accumulated surplus for training trust funds, so that training programs can start this winter?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, we have already, as the Premier has indicated, decided on the supplementary supplied by the members opposite. But I would like to assure the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin that I have already been in contact and in dialogue with advanced education and with the Yukon College in consideration and preparation for training needs when the pipeline is decided to come down the Alaska Highway.

Question re:  Roadside vegetation clearing

Mr. McRobb:      My question is for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. The supplementary budget tabled by the NDP opposition contains a new $400,000 winter works program named the roadside visual hazards clearing program. This program would employ hundreds of Yukoners in cropping tall vegetation and clearing other visual hazards alongside our Yukon roads this winter. It would also make driving our roads much safer.

This government inherited an accumulated surplus of $64 million. Will the minister do whatever is necessary to bring an immediate supplementary budget to support a roadside visual hazard clearing program - yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      As the Member for Kluane knows well, we're in the budget planning process right now, and brushing and clearing along the highways is one of the subjects that will be under discussion.

Question re:  Pioneer utility grant increase

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, as established by the Auditor General of Canada, this government has a surplus of $64 million at the beginning of this fiscal year. And I'd say that as the lapses come in they will have at least that much at the end of the upcoming fiscal year.

Now, seniors and elders throughout the Yukon Territory are facing skyrocketing fuel costs, and they're still rising, Mr. Speaker. That's to heat their homes, as you're well aware. Now, the official opposition's alternative budget included $150,000 to increase the pioneer utility grant to help out these seniors and these folks in need. Now, there is no reason for this Liberal government to ignore the needs of our older citizens.

So I'd like to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services a simple question: will the minister support a $150,000 increase in the supplementary budget for the pioneer utility grant to help the seniors and elders this winter? It is a simple question, requiring a simple answer - yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, for clarification, it would appear that the members opposite are doing a summary of this session of all the questions they have asked. Because, I guess, in a half hour, those are all the questions that they asked for the six weeks that we have been in session.

We keep hearing about the surplus of $64 million or whatever it is. We have a deficit budget of $33.8 million that has to come off that $64 million. I think the members opposite constantly -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      No, the Auditor General did say that there was a surplus, but also we have a deficit budget, caused by the government of yesterday. So we have to pay the bills. So we don't have a surplus of $64 million. I know that you're trying to give that impression to the public, but it's not there.

We are looking at the seniors utility grant, Mr. Speaker, because we recognize that some of our seniors are in very troubled times. But we have to look at it, Mr. Speaker, along with all the other energy factors that are affecting a lot of people in the territory.

Yes, we are addressing and looking at it at this point. We haven't made a decision on it, but that will be forthcoming.

Question re:  Education, pre-employment training

Ms. Netro:      My question today is for the Minister of Education. Young people who have less school often have special educational needs before they can get worthwhile jobs, or even qualify for specialized job training. These young people might need to learn basic life skills or improve their literacy levels. For example, our alternative supplementary budget addressed this need for a $350,000 investment in youth pre-employment programs.

Since the government inherited a $64-million accumulated surplus, does the minister support the investment of $350,000 to support young Yukon people to get pre-employment training this winter?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I do thank the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin for the question. And she is absolutely right when she says that there is a $64-million surplus, but the fact remains that we are running on a deficit budget of $33.8 million. We are accepting that. That is the budget that we inherited and have adopted as our own. So we are taking responsibility for that.

With respect to the question that she just asked, there are approximately 600 students in our education system who have special needs in some way, shape or form. And with all due credit to our educators, our teachers and their capabilities, attention to these needs is being applied as we speak today - and much credit to their skills and abilities to do that. So we are looking at ways to improve that service and to address the needs identified by the member.

Question re:  Seniors winter home support program

Mr. Keenan:      I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Now, the Minister of Health and Social Services, just a few moments ago, stood on his feet and basically said that the top watchdog of Canada was full of beans. I would suggest that it is exactly the opposite - exactly the opposite.

I would like to ask him about an adult winter home support program. This new program was designed to allow seniors and those with disabilities to receive support and remain at home, where they are most secure and most needed - within their families. It would allow a senior to call and say, "I need my wood chopped" or "I need my driveway plowed" or "I just need simple help" or "I need company." And they would be able to send that bill to the government under established terms.

Now, would this minister support a supplemental investment of $300,000 in an adult winter home support program? And, again, this is a simple question requiring a simple answer.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      For the record, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite doesn't always say it the way I said it. I said very clearly that there is a surplus of $64 million. I said that, but I also said that we have a deficit budget of $33.8 million. The members opposite never mention the deficit. They're always mentioning the surplus and they have to realize that we have to pay our bills. VISA has come in.

Mr. Speaker, as far as introducing a supplementary budget, we currently are in a supplementary budget at this point. We are looking at the needs of many people in the Yukon, and we're trying to address those needs. We are hoping that we can respond in a very positive way in trying to meet those needs.

Question re:   Land claims, repayment of loan

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

Back on November 29 of this year, I presented a motion to the House, which reads as follows: "THAT it is the opinion of this House that Yukon First Nations should not be held solely responsible for causing all the delays in settling Yukon Indian Land Claims because there have been successive changes in government at both federal and territorial levels, changes in comprehensive claims policy and continuing judicial interpretations of aboriginal rights and title over 27 years of negotiation; and THAT this House urges the Government of Canada and the Government of Yukon to accept their share of responsibility for causing delays in settling Yukon Indian Land Claims and agree to negotiate an agreement that will enable Yukon First Nations to retain a more equitable portion of their land claims settlement compensation."

The Premier introduced an amendment to that motion, which effectively gutted it, Mr. Speaker, and I would like her to explain now why she thinks it's fair to have Yukon First Nations pay back up to 65 percent of their settlement money to the federal government.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was introduced and the constructive approach that this side took to try to reach an agreement with the other two leaders on that particular motion would have seen the motion come back before the House in a manner that would allow everyone to reach unanimous agreement. We could then do as we have done in the past, which is to support a motion that would go before the federal government and urge them to live up to the commitments that have been made and that the Prime Minister himself made to First Nations when he travelled to Yukon. We are following up on this, as are the First Nations.

This government is very committed to the settlement of seven outstanding land claims and to establishing strong government-to-government relationships with all Yukon First Nations. We have done that in the first eight months that we have been in office, and we will continue to build on that strong relationship, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, nothing could be further from reality than what the minister is suggesting. The issue before us is to put together a motion that would have unanimous support of the House. The amendment being proposed effectively gutted it, and it would have just made the Yukon Liberals more cozy with the federal Liberals. It would have done nothing to move ahead the cause of the land claims settlement here in the Yukon.

I would like the Premier to tell the House how much the Yukon First Nations owe the federal government for negotiating land claims? I am after the amount of money owed, exclusive of the amounts advanced for the social programs - just the amount that they would have to pay back. What is it?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I believe that all Yukoners should be very well aware of the facts surrounding the motion brought forward by the member opposite. The fact is that the motion, as written, was written in such a manner that it effectively was argumentative, and it did not seek solutions; rather, it was extremely abrasive and was, if I may be permitted this somewhat violent language, abusive.

It was not solution seeking.

I indicated to both leaders of the opposition parties that I would have a motion redrafted that perhaps we could examine for support. I pre-empted a meeting I had this morning in order to meet with them at 11:00 a.m. and was advised at that point that, "Oh, did we forget to tell you? It's not happening." That's not solution seeking, Mr. Speaker. That's simply grandstanding for the sake of politics and trying to obfuscate the fact that the member opposite does not really support the settlement of land claims.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, all of the motions that I've moved here have been very constructive motions, had they been accepted. The two major impediments to settlement of the Indian land claims here in the Yukon are the repayment of the loans and section 87. They're both federal issues. Unless there's some movement on these two fronts, we're not going to see any settlement in the short term, Mr. Speaker.

Now, in view of the fact that it's unrealistic to think that Yukon First Nations are going to settle their land claims and pay up to 65 percent of their compensation back to the federal government, this Premier has rejected that proposal. Can she explain what her proposal is to settle these outstanding issues, or does she indeed have one?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, there is an expression, at the risk of sounding like a former member of this House who quoted at us endlessly, "Methinks the member doth protest too much" in terms of his constructive abilities in this House.

Phrases such as "incompetent" and "far from reality" are not constructive, Mr. Speaker, and they are issued endlessly from the member opposite.

With respect to this government's initiatives to settle land claims, we have done a great deal in that particular effort. We have worked with the Grand Chief in terms of the establishment of the common forum. The tables are actively negotiating and working toward solutions.

I have, as I have previously indicated in this House, personally lobbied the Minister of Finance with regard to the issues around taxation, and I have also been an active participant at the principals table. I am working actively, when the Minister of Northern Development is named to the Cabinet, to be among the first in the door on the agenda.

And I have also followed up with the Prime Minister with respect to a letter that the Grand Chief has also followed up with in that regard.

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

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

We all agree that the people of Mayo have waited long enough for a new school. This government's decision to postpone the project is unfair to the people of Mayo and will not result in the cost-saving that the minister is hoping for.

The official opposition tabled a supplementary budget that included $500,000 to get this project going this winter and it still leaves the government in a sound fiscal position. Will the minister now do the right thing and put $500,000 from the accumulated surplus toward construction of a new school in Mayo?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, we do have a $64-million surplus, but there is also a $33.8-million deficit. The members have continually, continually, espoused to be adding on to that deficit, Mr. Speaker. That's something we, being fiscally responsible, absolutely refuse to do. And I think that if we went beyond the deficit limit that we have now, Yukoners would throw us out in a flash.

Mr. Speaker, we have made the commitment with the community of Mayo. They will have their school. We will be building at the end of March. We will be opening the doors in January 2002. They will have their new school, Mr. Speaker.

Question re:  Street lighting in rural communities

Mr. McRobb:      My question is for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services.

The supplementary budget tabled by the NDP opposition contained $600,000 for rural street lighting for Tagish, Chooutla, Albert Creek and Dawson City. This program would employ several Yukoners this winter and increase safety for Yukon pedestrians and motorists.

This government inherited an accumulated surplus of $64 million. Will the minister do whatever is necessary to bring in an immediate supplementary budget to support the important installation of these street lights - yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      There was, at the beginning of this fiscal year, a $64-million surplus. It was disappearing rapidly by the time this government was sworn in to office. Now there is a $33-million deficit budget for the year that we are trying to deal with. And the member knows that well.

Question re:  Supplementary budget, further spending requests

Mr. Fairclough:      I have a question for the Premier. The supplementary budget that we are debating this sitting has expenditures of $37 million. It does increase the annual deficit for this year, but it also leaves a larger projected surplus than the Liberal government expected when the 2000-01 main estimates were passed. What this supplementary does not do is create jobs for Yukon people this winter, and that is a very serious omission.

As the official opposition, we have offered constructive solutions that would allow this government to address that problem in a fiscally responsible way. After considering these positive alternatives, will the Premier introduce a new supplementary budget to invest $7.7 million in jobs for Yukon people this winter and help the seniors and the elders pay their heating bills this winter? Yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      We are addressing the issues of heating costs and fuel costs for Yukoners. As a caucus, we are addressing them in a thoughtful and fiscally responsible manner. And we are working on that issue, as my colleague, the Minister of Health, has previously indicated.

Now, the member opposite has suggested that the opposition has put forward constructive suggestions. What the member opposite omitted from his question is the fact that the opposition has not heard or chosen to hear our responses, which outline the job creation that is contained in this budget. There are 600-some-odd jobs, which I have outlined in great detail in this supplementary budget, and others as a result of the fiscally responsible work of this government. There is job creation throughout the territory. There is long-term work being undertaken by our government on the Yukon economy, and we are continuing that work. And the results are starting to show.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, that's thanks to the NDP budget that the Liberal government has passed in this House.

Mr. Speaker, they came forward with a throne speech that had nothing in it. It was a hollow vessel with no vision, and continually in this House we hear broken promises. There were promises of introducing and passing the NDP's budget in its entirety and yet we hear those members opposite continually breaking their promises to Yukoners - SA rates, Mayo school, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, they were left with a very healthy bank account - $64 million in the bank, with a projection next year in the surplus of around $45 million at the minimum. It could be as high as $80 million, yet they do not make any movement to create winter works this winter.

Will the Premier do the right thing and introduce another supplementary budget of $7.7 million to create work this winter?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, the NDP math never ceases to amaze me. It is the season of miracles indeed.

The members opposite, particularly the leader opposite, stood and talked about broken promises. Let's talk about the commitments this government made in March and April of this year to Yukoners. Let's talk about our commitment to deal with health care, with substance and alcohol abuse and addictions in our communities, and let's show, Mr. Speaker, that the record reflects $7.5 million in health care spending.

Let's talk about the commitment we made to deal with tough issues that the previous government would not deal with: issues like rebuilding the Yukon's economy, like re-attracting the mining community to Yukon, which we dealt with in terms of the exploration tax credit, as well as the mining incentive program.

Let's talk about young people, who stop me on the street as they are home for their Christmas holidays and say, "Thank you for delivering on that commitment you made to increase students' financial assistance." Let's talk about the tough issue of the Elections Act, which that government stubbornly, stubbornly, would not deal with when they were in government - "No, no, we can't listen to what the opposition has to say, no matter how well-researched." Well, we committed to Yukoners that we would act on it, Mr. Speaker, and we did.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, the figures that we are using and telling the members opposite about are Liberal government figures. $45 million for the 2000-01 surplus is a Liberal figure. So, Mr. Speaker, they can't cry poverty to Yukoners any more. They have a healthy bank account and it is the way they spend that will dictate what we have in the bank account in the future.

It is a shame that they bring forward a $37-million supplementary that increases government O&M and makes government bigger by 6.4 percent, larger than any other main estimate that has been seen in growth of O&M. It is shameful. Yet, they did not concentrate on Yukon people, on-the-ground people, this year.

Mr. Speaker, they were left with a very healthy bank account. There was $64 million -

Speaker:      Order please. Will the member please ask a question.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, will the Premier do the right thing, again, and consider bringing forward - and we will support it - a $7.7-million surplus supplementary to put people to work this winter? People in the communities are expecting this. Will the Premier do the right thing?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, we have done the right thing. For one final time in this final Question Period, the surplus as of March 31, 2000: $63,926,000. That was March 31, 2000. That was months ago. Deficit: $33,817,000. That level of spending is unsustainable.

This isn't about crying poverty; this is about being responsible, open and accountable to Yukoners. I'm so glad the member opposite stood on his feet and criticized us for including in this supplementary budget a negotiated wage settlement - negotiated by the members opposite - for Yukon workers. He stood on his feet and said they weren't Yukoners. That's shameful, Mr. Speaker. They are Yukoners. This supplementary budget includes a negotiated wage settlement, which members opposite have criticized us for, but we're proud of. We work very well with Yukoners, and those Yukoners working for the government are helping us rebuild Yukon's economy by designing programs, working with Yukoners to put Yukoners to work, and helping them find long-term jobs this winter.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker:      Government bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Clerk:  Third reading, Bill No. 35, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I move that Bill No. 35, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 35, entitled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 35 implements two very important tax initiatives and it has received the support of the opposition members. It sees the Yukon's personal income tax rate drop from its present 49 percent of basic federal tax to 46 percent of basic federal tax, effective January 1, 2001.

It extends the Yukon mineral exploration tax credit for one more year - to March 31, 2002 - and, Mr. Speaker, it increases the value of the credit from 22 percent of eligible expenditures to 25 percent.

Mr. Speaker, it's critical and many Finance ministers across the country have discussed this at great length, that our tax regime be competitive and attractive to individuals and to businesses.

During the election campaign and after assuming office, we promised we would examine the public finances with a view to ensuring the affordability of these tax reductions. Mr. Speaker, promise committed, promise delivered.

We have done what we said we would do with respect to this tax credit, and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we're delivering on it in a timely manner. We're not waiting until the spring. We're delivering on this now, so that the federal income tax tables will see these improvements. It is critical that it not languish and that it is something that Yukoners will see, beginning in January. And, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Yukoners will be spending the savings locally. I am confident of that.

It increases the disposable income of Yukon taxpayers by over $2 million a year, which is a substantial sum by anyone's measure, Mr. Speaker.

The mineral exploration tax credit is utilized by the industry. And, while some of the exploration would have taken place in any event, this is encouraging to the industry and I have received support from them for this. The passage of this bill is also timely for the mining industry in that it ensures that the certainty is there for the future of the exploration expenditures, which are being determined now. And again I would state that this credit, while figures are still coming in, has proven very popular, Mr. Speaker. The final figures will soon be available in the near future as to just how popular it is. It is a valuable incentive. By introducing this bill and passing it this session, we have provided for the ready implementation of this measure by Revenue Canada. We have done what we set out to do as a government in acting upon this matter quickly, and we appreciate the support from the members opposite.

Mr. Fairclough:      I would like to thank the Premier for bringing forward again another strong NDP initiative. They like to cut ribbons on the backs of the Yukon NDP who have put a lot of effort into things like the windmill and the school in Ross River. They like to go and cut ribbons. And we are proud of the fact that what we had in our budget that they adopted was strong enough in some areas that they would carry out those initiatives. The tax cut is one of them. It was almost predictable how the members would make some ministerial statements about what they are doing, but it follows directly, line by line, the NDP budget that was introduced in the spring.

I would like to thank the member opposite for even expanding upon the mineral exploration tax credit. Those are good things that were introduced by this government. If the Liberals wanted to take it forward and make it better, increase the grants to it - well, great. There is money for that, but not for other places. And those are the questions that we have been asking day after day. When there is a political will on that side of the House, they would increase any budget that they feel necessary, maybe to help their supporters.

In Whitehorse, we can have an increase. Hamilton Boulevard, no problem. The Mayo school is on the back burner and it's a shame that that Premier made promises to the community people and then continually breaks them again and again. Another promise made, another promise broken. That's the way the Liberals work, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this forward. It's a good thing and it just shows the strength of the budget that was introduced by the NDP.

Thank you.

Speaker:      If the member now speaks, she will close debate. Does any other member wish to be heard?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      My comments on third reading covered most aspects of the bill. It's very simple in principle. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it does what we said we would do, in that we said we would examine proposed tax cuts, we would ensure that they were financially affordable for Yukoners, and we delivered on that. We delivered on it in a timely manner. And it also expands upon an initiative with respect to the Yukon mineral exploration tax credit and goes a long way to assisting this industry.

Again, I thank members on all sides of the House for their support for this worthy initiative.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question? Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      I think the ayes have it and I declare the motion carried and that Bill No. 35 has passed this House.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 35 agreed to

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. We will continue with debate on Bill No. 3, Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01. We are on Justice, community and correctional services - I believe Mr. Jenkins had the floor.

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

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures - continued

On Community and Correctional Services - continued

Mr. Jenkins:      When we left this area yesterday in general debate the minister was having a difficult time coming up with answers to a whole series of questions. I think we started off with the RCMP contract, with some $1.1 million. We learned that it was being spent on raises for the members of the RCMP, which is very well-received, given that their federal Liberal counterparts had had a freeze on wages for the members of the RCMP for some five years. And they have got a lot of catching up to do.

But I guess that what is more important is the amount of members in rural Yukon who are being drawn into Whitehorse. The staffing levels appear to be increasing at the upper levels but not down on the general levels, Mr. Chair. The minister just brushes this off as an internal matter and she is not doing anything about it.

One of the other issues in rural Yukon is the issue surrounding housing costs for the members, and that, under the new regime, has escalated from around $300 a month to some $500 or $600 a month, and now it is up around $1,000 a month, Mr. Chair.

And, at the end of the day, if the RCMP meets its budget goals, the chief superintendent in charge of M Division receives a bonus. So, that's all great, Mr. Chair. But the minister just passed it all off by saying it's internal. Is the minister aware of these situations, and is she prepared to do anything about any of them?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The Member for Klondike had not raised housing costs for RCMP members yesterday. I can look into that.

As for RCMP member ratios and assignments, the assignment of officers is based not just on community population, but also on crime rates. That is why there is variation between communities. Some communities have more officers assigned than others because they have a higher crime rate. Other communities may have more officers assigned in the summer than in the winter, for example, if the crime rate is higher in the summer.

It is true the Yukon does have the highest ratio of police officers in the country. I don't believe that's a bad thing; I believe that's a good thing. We believe each and every community needs to be protected and every Yukon citizen has the right to live in a safe home and in a safe community.

While the bonus for the commanding officer is an internal matter for the RCMP, I can inform the House, Mr. Chair, that this performance bonus forms part of a performance agreement with the RCMP commissioner. The bonus is awarded on the basis of performance, and the bonus can be up to a maximum of one percent of the commanding office's salary.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, we can explore another area that has come to light, and this situation could well rise here in the Yukon, and that's the provision of sidearms or firearms to the auxiliaries. Now, we all know very well that there are amendments forthcoming in the minister's other portfolio, the Motor Vehicles Act, where we'll see highway enforcement officers travelling around with their bullet-proof vests and their big belts with their pepper spray and handcuffs. There's also going to be the flexibility in the law that's being proposed to provide them with handguns, in spite of the minister's position that there are not going to be any handguns.

What is the position of the Minister of Justice regarding the provision of handguns to the RCMP auxiliaries? We've seen it happen in B.C. They've been provided with handguns; now they've been taken away. Does the minister have any position? Is she aware that this is an issue? And what is the policy going to be, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      It isn't an issue in the Yukon. The RCMP has not requested permission for auxiliaries to carry handguns and, to the best of my knowledge, no such initiative is even being considered.

Mr. Jenkins:      It has been considered and it has been acted upon in other jurisdictions in Canada. What is the minister's position should it come to the forefront here? And I am not speculating, Mr. Chair. Should it become apparent that the auxiliaries will be carrying handguns, what is this minister's position as Minister of Justice on that issue?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Jenkins:      It's a hypothetical question for the auxiliary. It's not a hypothetical question for the highway enforcement people. That's interesting, Mr. Chair. In one portfolio the minister has one answer; in another portfolio she has another answer for virtually the identical question - the carrying of sidearms.

Here we have this wonderful Liberal government in Ottawa imposing Bill C-68 upon us all, and more and more we're seeing various agencies of governments carrying sidearms around, Mr. Chair. I don't have any quarrel with the RCMP. They're fully competent, fully trained, and they use their firearms very, very reluctantly. But that is not always the case, if you look at British Columbia and their highway enforcement officers down there, Mr. Chair.

The auxiliary RCMP in British Columbia have actually had their firearms taken away from them. The minister says that it is hypothetical that it will arise here in the Yukon. I would suggest to the minister, au contraire, Mr. Chair. It could very well arise.

We are going to be seeing the highway enforcement officers travelling up and down with their bullet-proof vests and big belts, carrying their pepper spray. Yes, we know that the Prime Minister of Canada only uses pepper on his food. He just orders it to be used in other areas, but here in the Yukon, that's what we're looking at, Mr. Chair. And this minister is sitting idly by at the switch, saying that it's a hypothetical question. Well, I would suggest to the minister that it is not a hypothetical question. It is a very direct question.

We're not going to get any answers out of this minister, because she either doesn't know, she doesn't have a policy or she doesn't have a briefing note on it. We're going to have to leave it alone, because we're not going to get an answer out of this minister. Her silence speaks loudly as to where we're heading and what direction we're going in.

Chair:  Is there any further debate on community and correctional services?

Community and Correctional Services in the amount of $328,000 agreed to

Public Service Commission

Chair:  Is there any debate on Public Service Commission? Seeing no further general debate on Public Service Commission, we will head into operation and maintenance expenditures.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair:  Do members wish to have this entire budget considered carried and cleared?

All Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures for the Public Service Commission in the amount of $668,000 agreed to

Chair:  Is there any general debate on Renewable Resources?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I would like to take just a few moments at the outset, as I think it might help to move debate along.

This supplementary adds a total of $1,014,000 to my department's O&M budget and $135,000 to capital. These additional expenditures are offset by additional recoveries of $31,000 in O&M and $49,000 in capital, Mr. Chair.

The two largest requests for funding in O&M are $547,000 for an adjustment to the superannuation, which is recoverable from the federal government, and $266,000 to cover the collective agreement increases. This request also includes a transfer of $64,000 from the capital budget for the wildlife viewing technician FTE and $15,000 as a result of the revote of the state of the environment reporting to do the final printing of the report for public distribution.

The remaining $121,000 is new money and covers seven items: $500,000 is being used for the Thandlät ice patch studies; $25,000 is being used to create a permanent indeterminate policy analysis position that will be dedicated exclusively to forest-related issues; $20,000 is being used for moose survey in the Pelly Crossing area; $10,000 for the bison paddock cleanup; $6,000 for Colorado lynx relocation project; $5,000 is being used for the Mayo Lake fisheries assessment, and $5,000 is being used to cover the facility maintenance agreement increase due to the collective agreement.

Of the above projects, the moose survey, the Colorado lynx relocation and the Mayo Lake fisheries assessment are fully recoverable projects.

Moving on to the capital of the budget, this supplementary consists of a total of a $150,000 revote of capital monies previously approved by this Legislature to cover incomplete or unfinished projects, an internal transfer of $65,000 to the O&M budget for the wildlife viewing technician FTE, and $50,000 additional money, for a net increase of $135,000.

The $150,000 revote is going to the following projects: $30,000 to the parks system plan and support of the Yukon protected areas strategy; $5,000 to resource assessment in support of the Yukon protected areas strategy; $49,000 to the global warming climate exchange project, which is fully recoverable; $50,000 to capital works and campgrounds; $8,000 for the campground self-registration system; $5,000 to fisheries enhancement, and $3,000 to agriculture infrastructure facilities, namely the abattoir.

The $50,000 additional money is new money and covers two initiatives: $29,000 for the collective agreement increases and adjustments of the superannuation and $21,000 is going toward the Bonnet Plume heritage river plan to complete the wildlife baseline data studies as a continuation of the 1999-2000 work.

I trust these brief comments will help clarify some of the items prior to debate.

Mr. McRobb:      I too will keep my comments as brief as possible, since we're only about two months away from the spring sitting and a new budget, at which time we expect to review this department fully.

I would like to start by showing my appreciation and the appreciation of the caucus of the official opposition toward all the employees of this very important department, which administers our wildlife in the territory and cares for our natural resources among other things, such as promoting agriculture and so on. So, it's a very important department.

Now, I'll be somewhat less charitable in my comments in the performance of this minister, however. And I think it's fair to say that everybody expected more from him than what has been delivered to date.

After the election there was hope that this minister could do as good a job as the previous Minister of Renewable Resources did. But it has been seven months, and that hope has failed. Looking at the bigger picture of this government, which has lacked vision and direction from day one, Renewable Resources has been put on the back burner, both by the minister and his Cabinet. This supplementary budget and the lack of spending on the environment is proof of that.

Aside from the collective agreement and superannuation - an increase of $836,000 - there is less than $200,000 identified in this supplementary budget, and almost all of that is for revotes. There's absolutely nothing new in this budget that stands out. Any new money is directed at programs and initiatives created by the previous NDP government.

This lack of vision is unacceptable. This is the stage and the mandate where this government has to develop the foundation of what it plans to achieve in its term in office.

Its term in office is already more than half a year old, and we see very little in the way of new initiatives.

The mantra of this Liberal government, so far, can be rendered down to say anything, do nothing, especially when it comes to the environment and the Department of Renewable Resources. It's no wonder that departmental staff is wondering what the direction of this minister really is. Understandably, they feel that the minister and this government have put them in a holding pattern. Public servants in this department are truly dedicated to the Yukon's environment and are proud of their accomplishments in the past. But now they are being told to do nothing and not to speak out.

Cancel, review, delay - that's the Liberal way. That's the way the government is running. This is a classic example of how this government is running from its responsibilities. I am sure that fellow caucus and Cabinet colleagues of the minister look up in wonderment and marvel at his ability to follow the say-anything, do-nothing mantra. But I would expect more from the minister and his government, now that they have a special relationship with the big-daddy Liberals in Ottawa. There are several outstanding matters of importance to Yukoners that are linked to the federal government, and Yukoners are expecting many of them to be resolved and fulfilled now that all the Liberal stars are lined up.

What about issues like the Marwell tar pit? What about other environmental messes caused by that colonial government so many years ago?

I'll name a few: the BYG cleanup; Keno Hill cleanup; Clinton Creek, Faro, Whitehorse Copper and all the other environmental time bombs too numerous to mention, ticking away in our backyard, and all we have gotten from the federal government is lip service and empty promises that everything will be okay. All we hear, Mr. Chair, is that there is a special relationship.

When will this government deliver?

All the federal government has delivered in the way of cleanup of abandoned military sites is a credit of $100 million in arms from the U.S. government. That was shameful. That was a matter of debate in this Legislature a few years ago and was covered extensively at that time. It's sad to say that a progress report on that issue gets a failing grade, because the Liberals have done nothing. They have done nothing to allocate money toward a cleanup of those problems plaguing our environment.

So, when the minister stands up, I expect to hear a clear outline of how these matters will be resolved, considering the so-called "special relationship".

The Yukon protected areas strategy is under review. It has been under review for the last seven months. I understand the advisory committee still hasn't met yet. For all intents and purposes, Mr. Chair, YPAS has been shelved. There is very little in the way of progress and there's no certainty for either the development community or the environmental community.

What is the message to stakeholders or to Yukoners? I think it is quite simple: everything is on hold. Cancel, review, delay - that's the Liberal way.

The minister, on the other hand, stands up and repeats old ministerial statements. Today was no exception, Mr. Chair. But a lot of Yukoners, especially ones with an environmental conscience, would wish the minister would stop floundering or carping, and get on with the business of the public and produce in these troublesome areas of great concern to people in the territory.

I am sure that the minister is able to create half a dozen or so ministerial statements and conjure up some press releases before we see any progress from this government and this minister on the YPAS review, let alone any progress in the main thrust of creating more parks and protected areas in the territory. When will they deliver on that, Mr. Chair? Or will the review just continue on until the next election? Where is the on-the-ground progress? Renewable resource councils are wondering what happened to the territorial government. They haven't been hearing too much from the minister on issues related to renewable resources. What happened to this proactive listening-to-Yukoners and doing-what-we-said-we-were-going-to-do government? The RRCs are suffering due to a lack of funding to do the work necessary to manage and plan for the future. What is the minister doing about that? There's no money in the supplementary budget and no money in the Liberal's first supplementary budget either, Mr. Chair.

Where's the Liberal government on this issue? This is exactly where their special relationship with their Ottawa cousins can do some good. Now is the time to be building relationships with First Nation governments on wildlife and natural resource issues and to be working cooperatively with these governments to better manage our valuable natural resources.

But all I hear from the communities is that everything is under review and that any new initiatives will be sometime down the road before this government even looks at them. What kind of a message is this government sending rural Yukon? While it's full speed ahead on the pipeline, all other concerns and issues take a back seat to this single-focus government.

I'd like to remind the minister there are issues related to the survival of endangered species in the Yukon that are not being addressed. I know the minister is familiar with this. He travelled this summer to a meeting, to deal specifically with this issue. He came back and made some high and mighty promises, Mr. Chair, but we all witnessed what happened to the endangered species legislation. Once again, it died on the Order Paper. That is another example of how the Liberal government put politics before endangered wildlife in this country.

When we have a federal Liberal government that's willing to kill the act just so it can roll into another term, it speaks volumes for its priorities on the environment. It's shameful.

I look forward immediately to a strong message, from this minister to the federal environment minister, asking that this legislation be retabled when the House of Commons sits in late January.

Now, there is new money for a policy analyst to be dedicated to forestry issues. This is about time, Mr. Chair, because the minister needs someone to keep him abreast of what the federal government is doing behind his back. Question Period yesterday testifies to how badly this government has a grip on the forestry issues of the territory. Instead, this government doesn't know what's going on, isn't aware of the risk to land claims and other issues, and it's about time this minister and his colleagues get plugged into these important matters.

Now, I could go on and on regarding the inadequacies of this budget related to renewable resources, but, Mr. Chair, there is also an opportunity to deal with some issues in line-by-line.

I'd just like to summarize. There's nothing new here of substance for Renewable Resources in terms of vision and new initiatives. And I don't expect anything new and exciting in the main estimates in February of next year either, because the Liberal government keeps talking about the evils of running a deficit, regardless of having a $64-million surplus.

Mr. Chair, like another mantra, they like to stand up and point at the deficit; but an important and critical component of that surplus equation is the lapses, which is ignored by this Liberal government. Considering the lapses of this current budget year, the estimated surplus at year-end of this year is estimated to be at least $45 million by this government's own forecasts.

That is a very light forecast. It considers only $15 million in lapses. Historically, that is a very conservative amount. We know that the lapses will be much greater this year, which will increase the year-end surplus to a greater amount than $45 million.

Our leader, earlier today, alluded to the possibility of that figure being as high as $80 million. Unfortunately, we won't know exactly what that figure is until the end of October next year, when the Auditor General reports, although we will have a somewhat more exact figure when we deal with the budget in the spring.

So, when the ministers stand up and cry poverty, Mr. Chair, and talk about the deficit, we are not hearing the full equation. I would hope that particularly the Health minister takes note of that.

All I expect in February are further cuts to programs and less and less for Renewable Resources, because it's obvious that this government and this minister give this department and the environment a very low priority in terms of spending.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, I just have a few questions in general debate for which I will be seeking answers. One of the areas of concern by residents around the Yukon, and specifically in my riding, is the surrounding agricultural land, its availability and the timelines it takes to run through the process. I have three constituents who brought it to my attention - Edward Lilley, Michael Vincent and Bud Kenzie. They filed agricultural applications on or about February 24, 1998, and there has been no progress whatsoever.

Now, in the past, Mr. Chair, it was because of land claims. Land claims have been resolved and settled in our area. The Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in are fully implementing their land claims now. Does the minister have an excuse or reason for why these agricultural leases are not proceeding?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I am unfamiliar with the specific items that the Member for Klondike has brought to my attention. I'm glad he did, and I will be looking into those specific items and asking the department myself to make sure that there is a more speedy response with respect to those applications.

The member, I'm sure, is also aware that the agricultural policy and grazing lease policy evaluations are out for review right now. These were released, not necessarily with the government's position attached to them, which I think was a good objective. That way, not only will it afford those individuals in the territory who apply for and use grazing leases and agricultural leases, but will afford the opportunity of government to really have a good look at not only the recommendations that were contained in those documents, but also to consider the full value of what feedback we do get on them. I believe that the plan is for the review to be completed in the spring with final revised policies set in place by the summer of 2001.

I also have a colleague within caucus who is helping me specifically on the whole agricultural branch within Renewable, so there are two of us working on the issue, Mr. Chair, and we are addressing the specific needs, also including the multi-year development plan.

With all due respect for the Member for Klondike, I will check out those. If he would be gracious enough to provide the names again in writing, I will forward those names on myself and see exactly where they are.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, I listened to the minister, Mr. Chair, and I'm concerned that there's no progress being made on agricultural applications at this juncture because the department is out conducting a review on both agricultural and grazing applications. Is that in fact the case? Are these individuals going to be asked to wait until after these policy reviews are completed and a new policy is in place and then they have to re-apply under another set of rules? Because that's what it looks like is going to occur. Or did these people, at the time that they applied, apply under a set policy and a set of rules. They were given to understand at that juncture that their applications would be treated under that policy and that set of rules.

Now, what I'm hearing from the minister is that they're developing a new policy and a new set of rules. Which policy and which set of rules are going to apply to the applications currently before the department? Will it be the ones that currently exist, or are they going to delay and defer all of these applications until such time as they develop new policies and new reviews? And, Mr. Chair, is that fair?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The Member for Klondike is correct; it's not fair. And my understanding is that until there is an effective change in policy or in law or whatever, applications are reviewed under the current conditions. Again, I will pick up those names, and I'll hand them over to the department myself for clarification - exactly where they are - and I will write a letter personally to those members and give them clarification on the points.

Mr. Jenkins:      One of the other areas of concern is the abattoir that was recently funded in the Yukon. Has there been an overview as to where it's at? Is it achieving its objectives? I'm not asking for a full response here in the House today. Would the minister be kind enough to send over an overview as to where the abattoir project is currently and how it's proceeding? Is it meeting the goals that were originally outlined and expected of it? And can we look forward to seeing such an overview in the not-too-distant future, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Chair, I will do that.

Mr. Jenkins:      The other concern is surrounding forestry, and what happens and what is occurring in that area. It seems that the federal government and Government of the Yukon are not quite in step with each other, Mr. Chair. The Government of Yukon appears to be very much sidelined on the forestry issue here in the Yukon. Has the minister got a brief overview of the role of Government of the Yukon on forestry and what is happening? It's a sustainable industry that could put a lot of Yukoners to work.

The Premier was mute about going to her federal counterparts and seeking a THA for southeast Yukon. That spells out difficulties. And I was hoping that the minister could enlighten us as to just what the position of the department is with respect to forestry here in the Yukon. Are we making any headway?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      That indeed is a million-dollar question. With respect to the process that was going on in the development of a THA, it certainly was delayed as a result of the election.

I am sure that the member opposite is aware of what government policy is when there is an election, in that they don't really move on a whole lot. The letter that went out on December 1 by DIAND on the Y-01 area - the most sensitive area and most southeast in the Yukon - was a surprise, in that they did not really apprise Yukon that they would be initiating this discussion as it was put forward in their letter.

And that for a number of months before that, Y-01, Y-02 and Y-03 had always been known in the area, and Yukon had lobbied very hard and long on keeping the Y-01 area in abeyance until a plan had been developed in whatever shape or form DIAND, through a consultative process, came up with, with respect to Y-02 and Y-03. So, my understanding that, at this particular juncture, although things were to have been done and completed by the end of October, the election call came up and I was a little bit relieved in that it allowed more time for review in the structuring of the THA process.

As the member is aware, I'm sure, DIAND has unsuccessfully tried to develop THA processes for almost two years, and the activities or the process that they've tried to follow has been very unsuccessful in including key stakeholders at any given time or calling a meeting at the last moment and expecting key stakeholders to show up. So, when this government came into effect, we immediately contacted the federal Minister of Northern Affairs and requested that Yukon have more direct input and that the local DIAND office here have more respect, given that, in anticipation of devolution, we'll be handling the resources. So, the development of this process is something we're going to have to live with.

So we requested more direct involvement, and it was for that reason that our letter mark went on the latest request for information on the design of a THA process.

The member asked where we are exactly now. In a recent discussion with DIAND officials, they indicated that, because of the feedback that they have received - and I have not, I will admit, seen the details of that feedback, but as I understand it there will be continuing consultations with an individual hired by DIAND to go to the communities. Then it is anticipated that there will be workshops - at this time of discussion, at least two workshops, with one specifically at the request of Yukon in Watson Lake, and the other is as yet undetermined. I believe that is to be happening at the beginning of February, so we're not excited at all at the prospect of further and increased delays.

I have been listening to the Member for Watson Lake in expressing the concerns that the forest industry down there has. I have been listening and, contrary to what the Member for Kluane is saying, we are taking action, we are in dialogue, we are listening to the resource and stakeholders down in the area.

So, I would hope that the issues can be resolved a lot quicker than what the federal timeline is on this.

Mr. Jenkins:      The other area I'm looking for some overview on, Mr. Chair, is where are we at with the protected areas strategy? I don't want the minister to stand up and respond at this juncture. Is there a written overview of where the department is at with this initiative, where the various areas are and where we're going with it? If he can provide a written response, I'd certainly appreciate that. Could the minister agree to do so, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Chair.

Chair:  Seeing no further general debate, we'll go right into line-by-line.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair:  Are there any questions on the recoveries?

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures for the Department of Renewable Resources in the amount of $1,014,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      I'm concerned about some of these initiatives and why we're taking money away. The wildlife viewing and the park system plan - I would have thought that these initiatives would have been very beneficial for our visitor industry, and there are various areas of responsibility for these initiatives. Some are in the department of highways, some are in Tourism, and some are in Renewable Resources. But wildlife viewing is a very, very important aspect of our visitor industry, and yet we're crossing money out of the budget there and, in park systems plans, we're crossing money out of the budget there. What's happening? Are they just going to lapse and bring it back next year?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      There was a revote to continue the park planning in the Fishing Branch of $30,000. Management planning and boundary surveys were unable to start last year due to delays in undertaking a review. Finalizing the boundaries and starting the management planning process for the Fishing Branch protected area are the next steps in the process, so there was a transfer of resource assessments of $60,000. So that created a minus $30,000. Further clarification on the resource assessment, if the member would allow -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Chair:  Okay, we'll continue on.

Mr. McRobb:      Can the minister table the report on the Tombstone claims that was supposed to be done last summer? I believe that it was going to be completed in August. Can he provide that for us?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Can the Member for Kluane further clarify what report he is referring to, please?

Mr. McRobb:      Sure, I can provide a bit more information. It was on the buyout of the claims - the Canadian United Mineral claims, I believe. It was undertaken during the spring sitting to do a report. Apparently it was to be completed in July or August. Does the minister have that report and can he provide it to us?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I don't believe that report has been finalized.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, that's another item behind schedule, Mr. Chair. Can the minister at least undertake to provide it to us when it is available?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Chair.

Park System Plan in the amount of an underexpenditure of $30,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      It sounds like the department has got its way on this initiative here and we're seeing more money with the self-registration system and campground facilities.

The last industry the Yukon has left going for it, as a consequence of federal Liberal and Yukon Liberal policies, is our visitor industry, so the area of campgrounds and the respective facilities, Mr. Chair, deserves quite an added amount of attention than it is currently being given.

We need to upgrade a lot of our campgrounds, we need to provide more facilities, and our viewing areas need to be enhanced. The one we discussed at length last year was the Five Finger Rapids viewing area. I haven't heard anything more about the game plan as to when this is going to come into focus and occur.

I'm not asking the minister to stand on his feet and answer now. I'm just asking him to take it under advisement. We will expect in the budget next year to see a very strong emphasis on campgrounds - their enhancement, the Five Finger Rapids viewing area - and those initiatives coming to the forefront and being addressed. It's about time.

The federal Liberals and the Yukon Liberals have destroyed every other industry here in the Yukon, such as mining and oil and gas. At least with the visitor industry we have a chance, Mr. Chair.

So, we will expect next spring to see in the mains some additional funds dedicated to this area, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I realize that wasn't a question, but I would like to respond to the member opposite. I do agree with most of his nattering, with the exception of what he is saying on exactly what this government is doing on other sectors, in trying to kick-start the economy in the devastation that we inherited.

The fact is that I will echo his sentiments as will, I'm sure, members of the official opposition, that our campgrounds have been neglected for years and years and years. In my discussions with directors within the branch, I would like to acknowledge the statement made by the Member for Kluane that we do have an incredible group of individuals who work within the Department of Renewable Resources. They are a very dedicated group of people and I very much appreciate the comments that he has passed on and the kudos that he passed on to the folks within the department. I do thank him for that, but then again, he does wander off in a headspace of his own when he starts talking about and recognizing the accomplishments of this government.

I will provide a list of what we're doing in our campgrounds to the Member for Klondike and the leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Jenkins:      Campgrounds and viewing areas.

Chair:  Okay, so we'll continue on then.

Capital Works - Campground Facilities in the amount of $65,000 agreed to

Mr. McRobb:      This is the wildlife viewing project - reduction of $65,000. Now, as I understand it, the ministers undertook to provide information to the leader of the third party and the leader of the official opposition. Can he provide to me, please, a complete list of which wildlife viewing projects were done in this budget year and why he's taking $65,000 out of this very important program?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I would be more than willing and pleased, Mr. Chair, to provide copies to each and every member on the other side, seeing as they don't choose to communicate among themselves at all.

With respect to the wildlife viewing, this was a $65,000 transfer of one FTE to O&M. And yes, I will provide a summary to the member opposite on the work that was done on wildlife viewing areas in the territory. I'll send a copy to all members.

Wildlife Viewing in the amount of an underexpenditure of $65,000 agreed to

Mr. McRobb:      Under fish and wildlife management, I have a question regarding wolf control and trappers programs. Does the minister have anything in mind to involve trappers in this program?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I thought we were on line-by-line.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, and the line is for fisheries enhancement.

Chair:  The interpretation of this is that since it's under fish and wildlife management planning, it doesn't specifically have to be on this project. Anything to do with fish and wildlife management planning is a valid question. So whether you want to answer it or not, Mr. Eftoda, is your choice; but it's within the legal bounds.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      With all due respect, I am going to have to ask the Member for Kluane to ask the question again. I am sorry.

Mr. McRobb:      Sure, Mr. Chair. With regard to the wolf management project - I will refer to it as that in broad terms - is this government or the minister planning to involve trappers in any way?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The wolf conservation management plan in the Aishihik area may be the area that the Member for Kluane is alluding to. This is the only wolf conservation management program that we have in the territory right now. The department is embarking on an experimental program of wolf fertility from 2000 to 2003 in the Aishihik area. And a minimum of six packs in key moose and caribou will be maintained as non-productive units.

The program is consistent with the Aishihik integrated wildlife management plan and was supported as a viable alternative to lethal control by a number of partners attending the August 10, 2000 meeting to discuss the plan. This included the Alsek Renewable Resource Council, the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Yukon Fish and Game Association. To the best of my knowledge, I believe that that study is going to be maintained to the year 2003, and then there will be consideration of what next steps are required.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Chair, I'll explain that a bit further, if I may, because I'm the one who asked the Renewable Resources critic to bring it up.

What happens is that, since I'm not sitting on the opposite side of the House and I have much more time and the ability, I have just taken a refresher trapping course in Haines Junction. It was put on by some very professional people, good people, and I thank the department for being able to do that.

Now, what came up, though, and what has come up within my riding - the Ross River area and the Teslin area - and other areas is that a lot of wolves are out and about. Just last winter, in my short time at home, I experienced eight sightings of wolves from my own house. People are asking me now how they can go out without having gunships, like the Yukon Party loved to do, and shoot the wolves from the air. Is there something that we can do to curb the wolf population at the local level without getting the gunships out again?

It's not a trick question. I'm asking if you would be able to talk to people out and about the department to ask if there are ways to involve more local people in the curbing of the wolves. You don't have to answer on your feet at this point in time. A written response at some point in time in the future would suffice.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I do have an answer and I will supply it in writing to the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes.

Mr. Keenan:      I have another question and I hope it falls into this realm. It's on policy and planning, and I hope this is the right spot and I hope I don't get called out of order. It is on the ministerial statement that was delivered this afternoon.

I asked the minister in private some time ago about the policing aspects of the reciprocal agreement and whether the law enforcement officials - the game wardens, if I can call them that - from the Yukon would be empowered to go into British Columbia waters for enforcement?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I'd be more than pleased to send the agreement over to the member opposite and to the Member for Kluane, since he just stuck up his hand, and the leader of the third party. 'Tis the season.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, it will identify the aspect the member asked about with respect to enforcement.

But I will, most generously and with a ribbon, be more than glad to send to the members opposite any information that they want.

Fisheries Enhancement in the amount of $5,000 agreed to

Department of Tourism

Chair:  Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to introduce the Supplementary Estimates No. 2 for the Department of Tourism.

The department has requested an increase of $971,000 to its O&M budget and $420,000 to its capital budget. The supplementary includes $54,000 in O&M revotes and $475,000 in capital revotes. This supplementary budget reflects an increase in the superannuation cost and payroll increases under the collective agreement of $297,000 in O&M and $52,000 in capital.

The highlight of this budget is the new program the Department of Tourism has introduced, the stay-another-day program. It is designed to encourage visitors to increase their length of stay in the Yukon. We want visitors to spend more time and money in the communities. Our new program will see the combined marketing of tourism, arts and cultural industries and heritage into a program that will benefit many sectors through partnerships. Phase 1 of the museum strategy is in this supplementary budget. A new museum strategy is a priority of this government.

Also included in the supplementary budget is a wonderful project that will see the development of two virtual museum Web sites: one on Herschel Island and the other on Yukon photographs.

The beauty of this computer program is that it is 100-percent recoverable from the federal government. The department completed the virtual museum project by working with our museum partners and the college.

I committed to this Legislature and to the tourism industry to have more facts and figures. The Department of Tourism will be hiring a research officer to make this happen.

Air access is also a priority of this government and we have undertaken an air access study. The supplementary budget allows us to move the study to the next stage. We will develop business plans to increase air access through negotiations with domestic air carriers, including Air Canada and Canadian - or what used to be Canadian.

Another enhanced program that we are proud of is the Yukon Film Commission. Yukon residents have enjoyed approximately 1,800 person-days of work on film production so far this year, compared to 250 person-days in 1998. Inquiries from movie and television commercial producers are increasing. We are providing additional resources to take advantage of the growth in this industry. Because the film industry is growing, we have an opportunity to get involved in a public/private partnership. An electrics package is all the lighting equipment, cables, generators and lights that are needed for commercial or a small feature film project. We feel that, over time, this investment could generate a reasonable profit.

Finally, we have committed to working with the Yukon Convention Bureau, communities and local business to promote the Yukon as a convention destination. The government is providing funds to the Yukon Convention Bureau, which will allow them to hire a convention sales person to assist in the preparation and delivery of convention bids.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain this supplementary budget, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, I would be remiss if I didn't get up and give this minister a hard time on her failings as Minister of Tourism in much the same way that I held accountable the Health minister, the Renewable Resources minister and the Community and Transportation Services minister. And there is one area in particular that I want to get at with this minister, and that is her failing to answer questions - a complete failure to answer questions.

In Question Period, in this sitting especially, many, many questions were asked related to departmental policy, related to government policy, related to value for money for purchases and so on, and this minister failed to provide the answers.

Mr. Chair, she confused the investigation by Mr. Hughes with policy questions and with information that the department should be willing and able to provide. Now, it might be that the department is willing and able to provide the information, but the minister certainly isn't. I think there's a roadblock at the political level. And we could have chosen, Mr. Chair, to pursue that matter, but we chose not to. We chose not to, Mr. Chair, because we would expect no more from this minister in the way of information and answers.

It is sad when we on this side of the House give up asking the Tourism minister questions because we know the questions will not be answered. So, let's hope for a better performance in the sittings ahead, Mr. Chair, from this minister especially.

Now, I do have a few questions, starting with the tourism marketing fund. Can this minister indicate exactly where this program is at and where it will be in the years ahead?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, first of all, there is a vast difference between answering the questions the way the member opposite wants them answered and answering questions.

The tourism marketing fund is under review. By that I mean that we have been examining the way that those funds have been delivered to the private sector and to NGOs over the last few years. We have constructed a discussion paper on the tourism marketing fund and that paper, along with other documents, will be going to caucus for further discussion.

That is exactly where it is at, and obviously there will have to be a decision before the construction of next year's budget.

Mr. McRobb:      I assume that there won't be any more returns pursuing this matter because the minister will just stand up and say it's under review, it has been delayed and we have nothing for you at this time. But I would like to remind the minister of how important this marketing program is for tourism operators in the territory, and there is no reason why this minister couldn't have used her great influence at the Cabinet table to include this program in the supplementary budget that we're dealing with now.

Tourism operators have spoken to me personally and to us as a caucus and told us how disappointed they are in the lack of funds this winter to help them market their products and businesses.

There is no excuse for this, Mr. Chair, given the huge surplus this Liberal government is sitting on.

Mr. Chair, I would like to remind the Tourism minister once again that we'll be watching closely what happens to funding for the arts community, because we know it is under review. The arts community is very important to the territory. There are a lot of people involved in our cultural industries and so on who are supported by this funding and who rely on this funding to develop their creativity into products and services all Yukoners can be proud of.

So I'd like to ask the minister where this review of the funding is at and where she expects it to go and what the timelines are.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, first of all, it's a good thing that the member opposite is going to hold this side accountable. When I was on the side opposite, that was my job, and I'm glad to see that he is so clear on what their role is. They are no longer the government; they are in opposition.

As for the arts funding and arts funding models, the vast majority of arts funding has, in the past, come through the community development fund. That is not the best approach; it is not sustainable. It doesn't work well with the long-term objectives of the arts branch. It also does not work well with the long-term funding objectives of this government.

Therefore, there have been a number of internal reviews that have gone on. There have been some discussion papers prepared, much like the ones under the tourism marketing fund. They will be going to caucus, and there will be a strong and, I'm sure, quite vivid discussion around that issue. But to be absolutely clear, this government strongly supports the arts community, and we are disturbed with the fact that the previous government did not support the arts in the way that we think they should be funded, which is through the line items in the arts branch.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure who this minister is talking to. The cultural groups in the Yukon were the best funded in the country until this Liberal government got in and held up this program by putting it under review.

Mr. Chair, we've heard all kinds of good feedback and accolades from people not only in the cultural industry, but other Yukoners who appreciate our strong arts community and resources in the territory. There's no reason why this government could not have provided more funding in this supplementary budget to the tourism marketing fund. There's no reason why they have to hold up the community development fund by not bringing in funding in the fall like we would have done and like we historically always did, Mr. Chair. The fall was the time of year to take a closer look at the books, after the Auditor General reported, to refocus on the year-end and to revisit the need to provide further funding or new funding for Yukoners during the winter.

Now, in the spring this government said the surplus was $41 million. They were wrong. The Auditor General, at the end of October, tabled a report indicating that the surplus was $64 million. Now that's more than 50 percent higher than these Liberals thought it would be.

Yet, in the fall when it came to providing funds for the arts community and for tourism marketing, Mr. Chair, they were bankrupt of ideas on how to do it and they pleaded poverty. Well, that's shameful - that's shameful.

We see some ministers stand up, and in the Christmas spirit, try to paint themselves as being very generous, but Yukoners will remember the winter of 2000-01 when this Liberal government sat on a huge surplus and did nothing to help Yukoners get through the winter.

This government has painted a true picture of what it will be remembered for, Mr. Chair. And that's shameful - shameful.

And what's even more shameful is that these Liberal Cabinet ministers don't understand where they're at financially. They're either blind or they have been hoodwinked into believing that the economic standing of the territorial finances is far, far worse than it really is. And that really troubles me, Mr. Chair. It's really troubling. Because it's this group of people who make the budget decisions of the territory and that's a responsibility for about the next three years. If they don't know how much they have to spend, how can we expect them to best provide for Yukoners? That's the question.

Can the minister indicate to us what the main options are that she and her colleagues are considering through these discussion papers that have being prepared and the discussions at the caucus table? I understand how the internal government process works, Mr. Chair. There's probably an options paper identifying two or three options. Can she indicate what those are for us?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, if the member opposite knows what the process is, then he knows that those are internal documents. They are not for discussion on the floor of the Legislature. To be absolutely clear, those are not public documents. There has not been a decision made.

Let's go back again to some of the comments from the side opposite. We're talking about the CDF. The CDF is under review because there is no money left, because the vast majority of those dollars were spent in the last 17 days of a dying government. The money is spent. It's not there.

To be absolutely clear, if the side opposite continues to listen to people who agree with them, then they're going to end up in opposition forever, because that's a problem, because you have to listen to both sides of the story. We heard, when we were the opposition, people who supported the tourism marketing fund, but they also said there were major, major problems with it.

The other thing that the member is not quite clear on is that we are not making totally political decisions about these funding mechanisms, either through TMF or through the arts. What we have done is that we have gone back to the arts community, we have gone to the private sector, we have done extensive consultations, and we have asked people what they think would work.

We didn't make a political decision three months after coming into office and say, "This is the way it's going to be." We are not going to do that. That was done by previous governments, and I have many examples of where funding came out of the blue for projects when there was really no reason for it.

Now, this government is looking at sustainable development in the arts. We want a strong and vibrant arts community that supports what we're doing in tourism, that supports us in our education systems, that supports Yukoners in everything they do. We are trying very, very hard to listen to the people and what they have to say.

We are not going to be making a political decision about this funding mechanism or any other.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, I could take exception to those remarks, but, you know, the spring sitting is only two months away. That will be the time when Yukoners get to see what, if anything, this Liberal government has to produce on its own, because it won't have the previous NDP government to rely on for drafting its budget. We'll see then what this government stands for and what it doesn't stand for.

So, with that, Mr. Chair, I clear general debate.

Deputy Chair:  Is there any further general debate on the Department of Tourism? Seeing none, we will now proceed to line-by-line.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Chair:  Are there any questions on the revenues?

Mr. McRobb:      Can the minister give us a breakdown on the $80,000 for the Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre please?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      The anticipated transfer to the museum did not take place. This was the one where there was that shared process with the Yukon Transportation Museum. Admissions revenue was done by the department, so it was done by department staff at Beringia. This does not mean to say that we have abandoned the idea of the Friends of Beringia, that process is still going on. I should be meeting with the Friends of Beringia either later this month or at the beginning of the new year.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, how much of this $80,000 was for the buyout of Mike's North Communications?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      None.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, that's contrary to what we were told in the Tourism briefing session. Will the minister revisit that issue and provide us with another answer?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, this is recoveries. This is the $80,000 that was an in-and-out item for the transfer to the Friends of Beringia model. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issues in Beringia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Chair, that's aside from the issue. The minister refused to answer the question. How much of the Beringia money went for the buyout? Can she answer that, please?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, none of those dollars are included in this line item whatsoever. I believe that the final figure was $67,000, although I'm not exactly sure and I don't have the papers here, because this has nothing to do with the supplementary budget again, Mr. Chair.

Deputy Chair:      Are there any further questions on the revenue?

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures for the Department of Tourism in the amount of $971,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      Could the minister advise the House if the department has refocused its initiatives on our principal markets - the U.S. and Europe - and kind of got out of the oriental area, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, yes, those transfers have taken place. That is not to say that we aren't still doing some work in those markets; it's just that we have done some transfers from that budget into the North American budget.

Mr. Jenkins:      Is anything happening with respect to our major market? Has anything been earmarked for Alaska and marketing in that region?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Our biggest partner in that, of course, is the stay-another-day program because what we are trying to do is to get people, who are on their way to Alaska or coming back from Alaska to stay another day here. So, they are our biggest partners in that. There will be a great deal of advertising and, over in Alaska, joint marketing programs with them are already starting to take place. Part of that was developed at the Alaska Travel Industry Association meeting in Alaska, held two months ago.

On Tourism Marketing Fund

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, is there any initiative afoot to refocus Beringia on its original business plan and move it along from there or are we going to see it - in what format, the existing format?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, we're looking at Beringia in the bigger picture. Much like we're looking at the Northern Lights Centre and the other various facilities - the George Johnston Museum, the cultural centre in Carmacks and all the rest of them. We're looking at them altogether under the museum strategy. It seemed best to take a more holistic approach.

Yukon Beringia Centre - Marketing in the amount of $13,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      Are we going to see a new highway signage policy coming down the road, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:     Yes, Mr. Chair, that was one of my first priorities as the minister. Any of us who spend any time on the highways can just see the difference between what happens outside and what we have got here.

We are working on that project over the winter and we are, of course, working with all the other departments it applies to - Renewable and, obviously, C&TS, which is the lead - and we have a signage committee under the Yukon tourism marketing partnership and we also have people who have gone out to the signage conferences in Edmonton just recently, and we are developing a Yukon-wide plan for signage.

Interpretation and Signage in the amount of $14,000 agreed to

Mr. Jenkins:      I was wondering if the minister could provide an overview of what we're doing here for the additional funds, and I would hope that we're looking internally, because most of the problems we have with the product that we offer are right here at home, Mr. Chair. And I would urge the minister to start looking and consulting with her colleague in Community and Transportation Services. Because if we look at the infrastructure that needs to be addressed, it's the airport here in Whitehorse, it's the airport in my community of Dawson City, which, just to make it conform to existing regulations so it can get its operating certificate, is going to be another $4 million. To upgrade it and pave it, it's another $8 million on top of that, so we're looking at $12 million, and we can't even get an answer from the minister of towns and trucks as to whether there's an initiative taken to open the Taylor Highway in Alaska that connects with the Top of the World Highway in the Yukon. So the minister of towns and trucks doesn't know, but this impacts considerably and very much on our visitor industry, Mr. Chair, and I would urge the Minister of Tourism to probably have a little chat with the minister of towns and trucks and see if we can come to some understanding as to the opening of the Taylor Highway in Alaska, the airport in Dawson, and a lot of the other facilities.

Now, if we're looking at highway signage all up and down the highways, that's great. But if we don't cut the brush down along the sides of the highway, like the minister of towns and trucks hasn't been doing, Mr. Chair, we've got a real problem. We can have the nicest signs, and we have some of the nicest signs, and you can see them up and down our highways, but they're hidden in the brush.

So just where are we at with looking internally, and is some of this money earmarked for that initiative, Mr. Chair? And the resource assessment - is that an internal resource assessment that we're going to be looking at? And it's probably just to lobby the other departments within government. If we look at it overall, Mr. Chair, the only surviving industry is our visitor industry here in the Yukon. The federal Liberals and the Yukon Liberals have destroyed the mining industry, destroyed the oil and gas industry. What have we got left?

We need all the tools possible to give to the visitor industry to see if we can enhance that and provide some jobs, Mr. Chair. So, some of the areas that the tourism industry or the visitor industry has to work with is the minister responsible for airports and highways. What is happening overall, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      I can give the side opposite some examples of some specific projects that we are working on. One of them started at the Alaska Travel Industry Association meeting in October, only two months ago. We had extensive conversations with Era Airlines. They brought up the issue about the GPS system - and it's a $118,000 item - and we have been working with C&TS on dealing with the issue of that airline coming into Dawson City.

In addition to that, of course, I will go through and give the detail on the line under product and resource assessment. $4,000 was the revote required for revisions to the tourism strategy document, which included the final edits and printing. That was a document that was started under the previous NDP government. There was a revote for the Kluane tourism plan to carry out the regional meetings needed to complete the plan. There was a revote for the Arctic vision project to complete the consultants' work. $18,000 was a revote for the icon development or a continuation of the destination product development assessment. These all have been ongoing studies that have been happening in the department, and most are complete now. We went down $22,000. The client services position is now vacant, so those salary dollars were reallocated to other departmental priorities. And, of course, the $50,000 for the air access study, which we are doing quite well with, actually.

Air Canada came up to the Yukon. They certainly haven't gone to any other jurisdiction in Canada with decision makers to talk about air access issues. That was a real coup for us and we have done quite well on that project. There will be a finalization of that study, and we will be going out and talking to the airline with that information early in the new year.

Mr. McRobb:      I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if the minister can indicate to us which icon development projects they're actively considering?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, one of those is, of course, in the Kluane area. There are a number of them, mostly in the Southern Lakes district, but I will get a written response back to the side opposite on that issue and, of course, copy it to both parties.

Product and Resource Assessment in the amount of $59,000 agreed to

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, this matter concerns me. I was at the Beaver Creek visitor reception centre a couple of times this past summer, in the new building - and, by the way, it's a very beautiful building but it lacks what I would refer to as interactive displays. There is very little in the way of these smart display products inside the building.

Could the minister indicate to us if this appropriation of $31,000 will fill that void and, if not, what is coming down the road for this facility?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, we're at the meat-and-potatoes stage, unfortunately, with this project. This revote was required for the landscaping and development of a septic field at the VRC. Obviously, there will be ongoing work developing this visitor reception centre. The Member for Kluane is quite correct; it was an absolutely gorgeous facility and utilized a great number of the talents of the people in that area.

Development - Beaver Creek in the amount of $31,000 agreed to

Deputy Chair:  Are there any questions on the recoveries?

Capital Expenditures for the Department of Tourism in the amount of $420,000 agreed to

Women's Directorate

Deputy Chair:  Is there any general debate on the Women's Directorate?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Chair, I have this lovely speech that I'd like to deliver, which is extremely short. It's only a page and a half.

The Women's Directorate supplementary budget request is for $39,000. This amount relates to unforeseen one-time personnel costs, which must be absorbed by the department. And the request covers two retroactive pays totalling $14,000, increases of $9,000 related to the collective agreement, and $16,000 increases in superannuation due to a rate increase.

The mandate of the Women's Directorate is to support the Yukon government's commitment to the economic, legal and social equality of women. The directorate helps integrate gender considerations into our government's policy, legislation, and program development.

Ms. Netro:      I am pleased to see this government's continued commitment to the Women's Directorate. The economic and legal and social equality for women is near and dear to my heart.

It is to that end that we in the official opposition will be ev