Monday, February 26, 2001 - 1:00 p.m.

In remembrance of John Hatch

Mr. McLarnon:      Mr. Speaker, it is the tradition of this Legislature to honour those who have made a significant contribution to the Yukon Territory.

Today, I rise on behalf of the Legislature to pay tribute to the life of John Hatch.

John was born in 1937 in Quebec and he is survived by his mother Cathleen Rudd of Montreal and his sister Mary Gates of Australia.

It's a story that Mary tells that gives us a great idea of what John Hatch was about. When she was visiting from Australia in John's house with a whole bunch of friends over to visit, Mary needed a mail key to the mailbox. At that point, 20 people presented the key to the mailbox to Mary. His house was open, his life was open, but at the same time, that openness did not stop him from giving, and that's what we're here to remember today.

John moved to the Yukon around 1975 and became a resident of the Whitehorse Shipyards. Around that time, the building he was living in was one of the oldest existing buildings in the Yukon Territory - and in Whitehorse for sure. It was slipping to the river; it was eroding, and it was a burned-out shell. John, with the time, love and effort, restored that building and saved something for all Yukoners to remember - a legacy to our past.

He also, at the same time, put his life into the culture of the Yukon Territory, and that's how John will really hold his legacy in the Yukon Territory. He was involved in the Storytelling Festival, the Yukon Quest and the Yukon Sourdough Rendezvous. He was tireless in his efforts for Yukon Learn. As well, he was one of the original board members for the Second Opinion Society. Without his work, we would be in an emptier place today.

Now, in his professional life, he was able to give us photography; and that's what John was, a man of focus. He has given us exhibits that will document our lives and give them meaning years down the road. I hope that this legacy will be front and centre whenever we want to remember John.

He was part of the colourful five percent. In my opinion and the opinion of his friends, they got it wrong by four percent. He truly was in the top one percent of people in the territory with character, eccentricity, creativity and genuine love. That love showed itself in many ways to our Yukon visitors who came through. John opened his arms to them and opened his house to them. People from many countries stayed in John's bed or camped out on his floor. It wouldn't be uncommon to go through the campground in Carmacks and see John entertaining 40 or 50 people who had come around for stories of the Yukon.

He also was a spiritual man. John was a Buddhist. His philosophy of life was a calming influence to his neighbours and friends. As you drive by his house, which was still in the Shipyards, you can see the prayer flag, which was put up in memory. The prayer flag will fly until it tatters. But John's life will stay forever with us. As a Buddhist, he is reincarnated and we will feel that spirit throughout.

We will never know how many people he helped. We will never know the extent to which he gave. What we do know, though, by the people around when John passed on - the hundreds of people who came to his memorial and the friends who came and contributed to this speech today - that John was loved and John was remembered.

John, in his last days, fought for the rights of the Shipyards residents, and I ask every member of this Legislature to remember John when we are considering legislation and how it will affect the least powerful in our society. John fought hard and well for his neighbours. He also fought well for what he believed in. We will remember John in the classic John phrase, "Mmm, mmm, I think we will."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In remembrance of Dolly Josie

Ms. Netro:      It is with great pleasure that I rise today on behalf of the Yukon Legislative Assembly to pay tribute in honour of Dolly Josie. Dolly was a respected member of Old Crow who passed away October 21, 2000. Dolly was born on August 30, 1930. She raised a big family, leaving behind nine surviving children, 11 grandchildren and one great grandchild.

Dolly was raised in the traditional and cultural ways of the Vuntut Gwitchin and she passed those same teachings on to her children and the people of Old Crow. She shared her wisdom and knowledge freely. She left behind a legacy of good things. She had such a love for the land that she would spend as much time as she could out on the land. She took her grandchildren out to the spring camp in Crow Flats at Schaeffer Lake so she could teach them our traditional ways. She loved to teach those around her so that they could have strong ties to the land and resources, which we depend on for our survival. In the summer months, she spent time at the Twelve Mile camp with her family. This is where she felt at peace.

Dolly was a strong speaker and an excellent role model for our people. She often spoke strongly from the heart on issues that concern the Vuntut Gwitchin.

She tried hard to follow in her mother's footsteps. Her mother, Sara Abel-Chitze, was also a strong spokesperson for Vuntut Gwitchin people. Dolly shared her knowledge of the land and resources in north Yukon. She had a wealth of experiences to draw on, and even at the young age of 70, she was still very active. She always wanted to be out on the land, to see the caribou, to make dry meat. She wanted to cut and dry fish, to pick berries and to enjoy the clean and healthy lifestyle in the bush. Most of all, she wanted her descendants to know the ways of the land. That is where, as Vuntut Gwitchin, we get our strength. We must maintain that connection.

In closing, I would like to say thank you for giving me this opportunity to share with you some of the teachings of a remarkable woman. She left behind a legacy, and it is now up to each of us to carry on her teachings. We thank the Creator for loaning us a wonderful, loving, caring mom, grandmother, sister, auntie, friend, and teacher. One of her wishes was that the young people know who they are, speak their language, and know that they are from a strong and proud nation. That wish will be fulfilled by those whose lives she touched.

I share with you one of her quotes from a meeting that was held at an elders conference last spring: "We want people to work together good. We have to talk lots before decisions. We have to talk before we can work together. White people and Gwitchin people, we have to talk. White people have to talk to us about what they are going to do, and we have to share what we are going to do. This is how to work together good."

This is a very special time for people in Vuntut Gwitchin, when they are preparing to go out on the land. As they go out on the land, our prayers are with them for safety.

Mahsi'cho.

Speaker:      If there are no further tributes, we will proceed to introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, joining us in the gallery today is Mr. Chuck Halliday, visiting from Sechelt. Chuck is no stranger to the Yukon. He's a former member of a number of key Yukon organizations, including the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce, the Tourism Industry Association and many others. While he is certainly no stranger, we are very pleased to welcome him back.

Applause

Speaker:      Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. McLarnon:      It is my pleasure to table the documents entitled, "Advice Under the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act, to Mike McLarnon, MLA, Whitehorse Centre, January 25, 2001".

Speaker:     Are there any reports of committees?

Petitions.

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the 2001-2002 budget creates bigger government and fails to promote the economy; and

THAT this House urges the Liberal Government to amend the 2001-2002 Budget by reducing the Operation and Maintenance Budget and by increasing the Capital Budget to help create private sector jobs.

Speaker:      Are there any further notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fairclough:      I have a question for the Premier in her role as the Minister of Finance. Last week the minister tabled her first real budget and made quite a noise about public consultation that had gone into it. Will the Premier tell us exactly how many pre-budget meetings she had personally conducted as well as when and with whom? And will she provide that information in writing before the end of the week?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      As I have indicated several times in the public, this budget is a Yukon-made budget. We started with work by our whole caucus and all the deputy ministers doing some preliminary work on the budget. We followed that up with our entire caucus taking on travel throughout the Yukon, listening to what communities have to say on the budget. We also included, in our tours, the officials from the Department of Finance for which I publicly thank them.

Unlike the previous government, I would be happy to provide to the member opposite, in writing, a list of meetings that I personally attended, although certainly the list of public meetings is also readily available in the newspaper. We can gather that information and do some research work for the member opposite.

Mr. Fairclough:      We all know that the Premier spent a considerable amount of time away from the territory last month while the budget was being finalized. Mr. Speaker, I do have a follow-up question for her. Will this minister tell us what pre-budget meetings were conducted by other members of her caucus? And will she provide a written list, by Friday, of who was involved in those meetings, including MLAs, political staff and departmental personnel?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, although they have an ample research budget, it appears that the NDP are incapable of clipping the public notices and so on of our budget tours and our caucus consultations.

While I have indeed worked hard on behalf of the territory both within the territory and out, I also have attended a number of the meetings, contrary to what the member opposite would like to suggest.

So, yes, we will provide the member opposite with the information. Although it's already publicly available, we'll compile it and provide it to the member.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for that. What we want is accurate information that's coming forward from the members opposite on our request. What I have been asking for from the Premier herself may not always be in public notices.

Can the Premier tell us, from her own knowledge, approximately what percentage of requests from communities and groups actually receive funding in this budget that she tabled last week, and will she, again, provide full written lists of the requests made during the pre-budget meetings?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that we have done differently from what the previous government did. First of all, we involved all of caucus in the initial work on the budget and all of the deputy ministers in the room at one time. I previously asked the former Minister of Finance to provide written notes of these meetings, but I never received them. We, on the contrary, will provide the members opposite with a list of all of the public meetings, all of the consultation meetings, and who attended them.

As for what requests are in the budget, the member has only to read the budget speech to recognize that, throughout Yukon, priorities identified by communities are in the budget document.

Question re:  Teachers, collective bargaining

Mr. Fentie:      My question today, Mr. Speaker, is for the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

Last Thursday, in this House, the minister confirmed to this Legislature and to Yukoners that his government will honour and does honour the commitment to ensure that temporary teachers receive the same conditions and benefits as, indeed, teachers do themselves.

That being the case, Mr. Speaker, why did this minister take the unprecedented action of negotiating with the teachers in public when it comes to the temporary-teacher issue and make a tense situation much worse, driving the teachers into a strike position? Can the minister explain that, please?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, I did answer that question last Thursday, and I thought I answered it thoroughly, but I will answer it again for the member opposite.

There was a question, quite simply, about how the vote was conducted. And in order for us to be able to move forward and to ensure the integrity of the bargaining process, we asked the Staff Relations Board simply to check out the process to ensure that the rules were followed and that there would be no question about that. We did get a report back, and I would be more than willing to table tomorrow a copy of the report. But the report did indicate its ruling. We respect the ruling, and we believe the ruling to be fair and equitable. So if we want to recognize and acknowledge that, we're prepared to move forward.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I would submit that the voting by the teachers union is a sidebar to the real issue here, and it begs the question that all Yukoners are now asking: what is this Liberal government's position on collective bargaining? There seems to be little to choose between the Liberals and the Yukon Party when it comes to collective bargaining. The Yukon Party simply legislated collective bargaining out of existence. This Liberal government is circumventing, in a subversive manner, the collective bargaining process by going public.

I might add that other unions are watching this. I might add that the government unions and the nurses are all very vigilant when it comes to this minister and his government and collective bargaining.

Is it the case now that this government - this minister and this Liberal government - are now going to legislate the teachers back to work? Is that what is happening here?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Very good. That was a very good try. As I indicated, and I will repeat again, we felt the integrity of the bargaining process had been compromised slightly by allowing the vote to occur that brought into question some of the members who were participating in the vote. We did contact the Staff Relations Board in Ottawa and we did get a ruling on it. We respect the ruling. We are moving on - we have moved beyond that, but as is very typical with the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, they love to dwell and live in the past because that is all they have got to deal with right now. So, we are moving forward and we do fully recognize and appreciate the bargaining process.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, we are moving forward, Mr. Speaker, and that is directly into a serious, serious problem in this territory, especially when it comes to the children of this territory, whose education, by the way, is now being compromised. When it comes to integrity of the process, it is this minister and this government who attack the integrity of the collective bargaining process by going public. But let us in this Legislature think about the children of this territory and their education. And there is a way out of this that we all should be committed to. Will this minister, in a meaningful way, invite the teachers back to the table immediately? Let us negotiate properly at the table as it should be done. Let's get a deal and end this issue once and for all, here and now. Will the minister, in a meaningful manner, invite the teachers back to the bargaining table?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I let the House know that, about 9:30 a.m. this morning, there was a letter that did go over to Mr. Paul Nordahl, President of the YTA. It is a very short letter. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read it into the record.

"During any labour dispute, it is incumbent upon the parties to the collective to take stock of the issues on an ongoing basis. As a result of the discussions with the executive director on Sunday [just yesterday] a number of options have arisen that may be worth exploring between the parties. If you are interested in exploring these options, please call my office to arrange a mutually convenient time to meet."

Mr. Speaker, we are willing to go back to the table. We have indicated that. We will be going back to the table without the prompting and without the innuendo and insinuations from somebody across the way, who is suggesting that we are doing anything but the honourable thing. Mr. Speaker, we are going to the table.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker:      Hon. Member for Watson Lake, on a point of order.

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Speaker, accusing this side of the House of innuendo in the comments that he just made - in accordance with your ruling, the member is accusing us of falsehoods. I would ask you to rule on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker's statement

Speaker:      I will rule on it. Unfortunately, I can't rule on it today, because I would like to look in the Blues to see exactly what was said. I will bring in a ruling on it tomorrow.

Question re:   Budget, inclusion of capital projects

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

Now, the budget address states that capital projects have been chosen that maximize job creation, particularly during this current downturn in our economy. Capital spending set out in this budget will sustain almost 700 jobs. The word "sustain" has been carefully chosen by the crafters of this budget because it gives the impression that 700 new jobs will be created, when, in reality, all the budget is doing is sustaining 700 existing jobs. It is very clever indeed, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that all the major capital projects in the budget, such as the Mayo school, the extended health care facility and road construction were all announced by the previous NDP government, can the Premier advise the House why she didn't announce any new major Liberal capital projects? Can she give a breakdown of how many jobs are going to be sustained by each of the capital projects announced by the previous NDP government?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the member opposite for recognizing the budget as clever. We worked very hard on this budget. We worked with all Yukoners and I'm sure Yukoners appreciate the compliment he has just paid them.

In fact, this job does exactly what the member opposite and many others have urged us to do, which is to increase the spending on capital, especially on highway construction, Mr. Speaker, which, under the previous governments, including both the NDP and the Yukon Party, fell from $22 million to under $4 million. Now, that's exclusive of Shakwak. And our road infrastructure is the envy of the north. We need to maintain it and we need to spend money on it.

The member asks what new projects are in that. We have increased that spending. There are a number of new projects that will be undertaken on that. There is $400,000 on the rural roads program, and there are other capital projects, including completing the extended care facility, the Mayo school, recreation facilities in Whitehorse, Dawson City and Carmacks, and $800,000 on water and sewer projects in Ross River, Burwash and Carcross. Overall, we have increased capital spending by seven percent. And, what's more, we did exactly as organized labour and business asked us to do, which the member opposite has failed to compliment us on, which is switch the capital budget back from being in the spring to the fall when bids can be prepared.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, that's quite the spin. The reality is something else.

Now, the Premier and some of her Cabinet and caucus colleagues travelled throughout the territory, pretending to consult Yukoners on the budget when, in fact, the budget was already established. And, as now clearly demonstrated with the tabling of this budget, what we have is the second Liberal/NDP budget, budget number two - NDP/Liberal.

Can the Premier explain her statement in the Budget Address that capital projects have been chosen that maximize job creation, when, in fact, no new projects were chosen? And if these NDP projects didn't work for the NDP government in turning the economy around, how are they going to work for the Liberals when we now have 14 percent unemployment?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite persists in his belief that we were not listening to what Yukoners had to say. Well, the facts speak for themselves. If the member opposite takes the time to go through the budget speech and the budget document very carefully, the member will hear Yukoners' voices throughout that document. He will hear the comments from Destruction Bay about the marina. He will hear the comments from Burwash about having their roads cleared. The requests from the communities were not big-ticket items; they were straightforward requests that the communities asked for and which we took the time and made sure were included in the budget. We made sure that we listened to what communities had to say. We all heard their voices and their voices are reflected in the budget document.

As for the road construction and the projects that are underway this summer, I will agree with the member that Shakwak is not a new project. Finally completing and dealing with the corner at Pine Lake and the Champagne-Aishihik corners on the Alaska Highway on the road to Haines Junction are new. This government made some tough decisions. We have acted upon the advice of the community and the community is going to see that delivered.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, once again I get lectured. But, you know, I really appreciate the Premier and her approach that they are spending money on highways. Because the Premier has stated that, "Our way is the highway." Can the Premier advise the House if this statement was referring to the Alaska Highway that Yukoners are using to head south to find work? Or is it the Dempster Highway that Yukoners in great numbers are using to head north to find work in Northwest Territories? Which highway is it?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I do apologize to the member opposite if I came across as lecturing. That was not my intent. I am just so excited about the work we did on this budget and the budget itself, that I just can't help but sing its praises to the member opposite. The member opposite doesn't seem to want to take my word for it, that we did work very hard on this budget, so perhaps the member would care to read Sam Holloway's comment in Friday's Whitehorse Star, Mr. Speaker, where he said, "For that effort, and especially for encouraging the out-of-work miners of the Yukon, I thank her very much."

The Yukon community has stopped me and my colleagues throughout this weekend's Rendezvous when many of them were in town and complimented us on the work that we have done. The work in this budget not only brings back capital spending on our highways, which was desperately needed and which was decimated under the previous two governments, it also deals with the real issue of water and sewer programs in our communities.

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

Point of order

Speaker:      Member for Klondike, on a point of order.

Mr. Jenkins:      It doesn't decimate the highways budget. In fact, it increased, and it was doubled under the Yukon Party government. So get the facts straight. If the Premier could relate the accuracy of information to this House, it would be much appreciated.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      There is no point of order here. It's a dispute between members. May I ask the Premier to complete her answer.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, the short conclusion to the member opposite's question is that this is a good Yukon-made budget. We're very proud of it and all of the items contained in it, including the maintenance of our health care spending, as well as the highway construction spending that's contained therein and the jobs for Yukoners.

Question re:  Alcohol and drug secretariat, executive director

Mr. Keenan:      I have a question today for the Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Speaker, and I would certainly hope that he wouldn't be as defensive about his budget as the Premier, because we're just doing what we're supposed to do, Mr. Speaker, and that's to ask questions of the budget.

So, Mr. Speaker, I've been looking at the position of the executive director for the alcohol and drug services, which has a closing date of March 5. Now, it would be reasonable to expect that that successful candidate won't be known before April 1. So I was wondering if the minister could tell me when he expects the new director to be at his or her duties?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, I was waiting anxiously for a question from the member opposite. I met him in Teslin on my way back from Watson Lake, and we had a brief discussion at the gas pumps there. He was asking how things were going to go, and I just said great, because I'm full of all this good country oxygen.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker:      Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, on a point of order.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, we only have 30 minutes for Question Period, and I'm not really interested and I don't think the public is interested in the gas shop conversation.

So I asked the member a question. I'd please like the time retracted from what the innuendo was and add it on to the Question Period so we might get to the facts of the Question Period.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      I find that there is no point of order. It is a dispute between members.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the member opposite still has a good sense of humour. That's something we need in here.

At this point, I can't give you a definite answer as to when this particular person will be in place. We're just in the process of advertising right now. Whatever time the government takes for that, hopefully it will be as soon as possible. I can't give him any more of an answer than that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Keenan:      I would like to thank the good-humour man for that answer.

Now, this posting contains a lot of interesting information. There are a few information items that do require clarification. On page 6, it shows an annual budget that is in excess of $3 million for 2000-01. Does the minister seriously expect to spend this $3 million on this initiative and the secretariat between now and the end of the year?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      We are already spending a good part of that money on programs that are being offered to alcohol and drug services. So, these are ongoing programs. We haven't suddenly stopped our programs, just because we are going to move in a new direction. We are still moving ahead. We have put some extra dollars into there, so that once the person comes on board, we can start looking at sitting down with our partners in the communities and throughout the Yukon to develop further initiatives.

Unfortunately, I am not able to give him a line-by-line, because we don't have it at this point.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, I don't think we have much at this point, Mr. Speaker.

The budget just released last week speaks to $2.36 million. Now, the posting speaks to $3 million. The amount that's budgeted will allow for a deputy minister. It will allow for administrative support, but it will not allow for the expansion of front-line programming and staff. I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that, during the election, the Liberals had all the answers. They campaigned from the left and are ruling from the right, but at that time it was urgently needed.

I must say that this government is spending money on their number one priority and that is themselves. It is not on the people, as they said they would do.

Will the minister explain why this figure was published as part of the job posting when there has been no vote on that amount? Is he prepared to step down for this leak and break in budget confidence?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, this announcement has been long in our history here as government. I don't know what the member opposite is talking about.

The obvious factor, when we're looking at development, is that you have to have some dollars there to work with. We just could not say, "Well, there's no money." So we have taken the dollars that have already been spent in alcohol and drug services under the health jurisdiction and have just put it under a separate category. That's all we have done, and I don't know what the member opposite is searching for.

To identify monies and how we're going to spend it, we're already spending it on a lot of programs that we're now offering in alcohol and drug services, Mr. Speaker. It's not something new. It's ongoing. So there's no mystery there, and there's nothing meant in this whole process.

Again, we want to consult with our partners in the future. And before we can do that, we need a person - somebody with those kinds of skills and abilities - to do that. We're hiring one person, Mr. Speaker, not as many as the member opposite is trying to indicate that we're hiring. We're hiring one person. We're using the current staff now working for ADS. They are a very competent group of people. We're going to work with them in the new direction. We're not hiring a whole department.

Question re:  Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Ms. Netro:      My question is for the Premier. Just over a week ago, the Member for Riverside gave a speech before the members of the Alaskan oil industry and government in Anchorage. According to the speech on the Economic Development Web site, the member said nothing about this government's commitment to protect the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. A few days later, the same member gave an interview on the radio, during which he said that he had reaffirmed this government's opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Is the Premier concerned about the mixed messages her government is sending on oil and gas development and the impact of those messages on her government's credibility on this question?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no mixed message from this government. Our government's position has been very clear, and I have stated it for the member opposite many times. I have also provided the member opposite with copies of my correspondence with the Prime Minister on this subject and in January, I also spoke with the Prime Minister on this subject. There has not been an opportunity to advise the member opposite of that conversation; however, I have spoken with the chair of the Porcupine Caribou Management Board about it.

This government, as past governments, has indicated to the Canadian government and to the United States government that we are opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We have consistently stated that in my meetings with Governor Knowles and in my meetings with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister has stated that to President Bush and Clinton.

Ms. Netro:      Mr. Speaker, our new Liberal MP told me last week that he would be in Washington today, lobbying for protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. At the same time, the federal Energy minister is in Washington promoting a North American energy accord.

Can the Premier tell us which message her government expects the U.S. Congress to hear most clearly: the one from the high-profile Cabinet minister or the one from the backbencher MP?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I would advise the member to examine her question very, very carefully. Canada's position on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been very clear, and it has been reinforced by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of the Environment and by Minister Goodale.

Larry Bagnell, our Member of Parliament, is also very well aware of that message and has carried the same message that Yukon has carried on this subject.

Ms. Netro:      This sounds like another example of how the liberals are flip-flopping on the issue of protecting the Porcupine caribou. Can the minister give her assurance that she will continue to use the so-called "special relationship" with her Liberal colleagues in Ottawa to keep pressing for the protection of the Porcupine caribou calving grounds?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      This is another example of the member opposite reading her questions, as opposed to listening to what the answers are or giving any time to speak with any of us on this side, or to follow up on any conversations that we have. Our position as the Government of Yukon and the Government of Canada's position has been very, very clear on this subject. And I would invite the member opposite to re-read that. And I will re-provide her with copies of correspondence, if that is what she wishes.

Question re:  Protected areas strategy

Mr. McRobb:      Last week I tried to get an answer out of the Minister of Renewable Resources about the Yukon protected areas strategy. However, instead of answering the question, the minister just blamed everything on the previous government.

It is now nearing the end of this government's first year in power. People expect this minister to accept the responsibility that goes with being in government and conduct himself accordingly. Both the Premier and the minister have said that YPAS legislation would be introduced in the next fall sitting of this Legislature. The Liberals also promised Yukoners that they will do what they said they will do. Will the minister commit to bringing in YPAS legislation to this Legislature by the fall?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      That is exactly what we said during the election, and we will be doing that. But I think it bears repeating that the damages incurred by the previous government on a certain sector of the public - namely, industry and mining - and breaking down the barriers of trust and commitment, go far deeper than obviously the Member for Kluane understands or even wants to understand. I think that it's very unfortunate that we are at this result, in getting the repairs done to the implementation of goal 1 areas. The Premier and I are working very diligently and meeting with industry, mining, and other private sector individuals, getting them back to the table with the other 20 members who are moving forward in the repairs to the damages imposed by the members opposite.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister fails to live up to the responsibility expected of him in government and he continues the finger pointing. Well, I want to remind the minister that when he points his finger, there are three pointing back at him - one, two, three.

This government's own timetable indicates they're six months late. These delays must be overcome before this minister can make some progress in YPAS designations.

Another concern I had that the minister failed to address - I see he's having a good time over there, Mr. Speaker - dealt with the potential for backroom deals being made outside the public process.

Let me ask the minister again: will he assure this House there will be only one set of YPAS negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      It is good to know that the member opposite can at least count to three.

I would also remind the member opposite that there were 11 steps of implementation toward the goal 1 protected areas, and those steps were not applied correctly. No, they can't count that high. Thanks. And as a result of that, the government of the day created a tremendous distrust among a good sector of our population, to the point where they find it very hard to trust any government on what it says it's going to do. But we will, Mr. Speaker. We will persist; we will get them back to the table. We will move forward. There is going to be a YPAS; there will be protected areas in the territory. That was our commitment during the election, and we will do that with all Yukoners on side.

I will acknowledge that he says it's going to take time and patience. I don't think he has any idea what that means, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I can withstand the personal attacks. Let me also assure the minister that I can count much higher than 11. In fact, this morning, I counted to 30, because I think that's about how many more months this Liberal government has in government.

Now, the minister continues to point the finger, but will he tell us how he intends to bring the parties together, as the Liberals said they would do?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I can't believe that they are trying to pass on advice to this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, on how to conduct negotiations. One of the things that we're very good at on this side of the House is listening, and we make every attempt to answer the questions for the members opposite. Quite frankly, after getting into the third session and listening to the advice offered by the other side, it's very obvious that we don't need it because we are doing fine without it. I think that we will only get better at it.

So, we will have these people back to the table. The Premier and I will conduct meetings individually to encourage these people to get back and build trust. We will listen to what they have to say and will take that into account in YPAS.

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

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Speaker:      The leader of the third party, on a point of order.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask members of this Legislature to join with me in welcoming well-known Yukon artist to the Legislature, Jim Robb.

Applause

Speaker:      We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan. Adjourned debate, Mr. Fairclough.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to respond to the budget tabled last week by the Finance minister. In order to do that, I will take the minister's own budget speech as a guide but I intend to give a more accurate picture of what this Liberal government is actually doing with this very large budget for the fiscal year 2001-02 by providing the necessary background and content.

At the very end of her speech, the minister said that her government will continue to listen to Yukon people and that she is proud to table what she calls a Yukon-made budget because it was created by all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to give any offence or cause any disruption in this House so I will refrain from saying anything that might imply that this statement is in any way dishonest or misleading. I will say that it's an exaggerated statement and I will say that it's a self-serving statement. I will say that it is a classic example of Lib-speak at its best - the spin of the week, possibly the spin of the month, even.

Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge early on that people in the Yukon communities did participate in the pre-budget consultation meetings. Of course, we don't know how many meetings took place or how many people attended these meetings. We also don't know from her speech how many meetings the Finance minister personally attended and how many she off-loaded to other MLAs in the Liberal political staff while she was busy elsewhere.

That's why we asked the minister for that information just a few moments ago. Still, we don't know two things about the pre-budget consultation. First, we know that the idea of seeking pre-budget advice from Yukon people is not new, in spite of what the member opposite would like the people of the Yukon to believe. In fact, every budget that the previous government tabled clearly reflects the priorities of Yukon people, expressed directly by the Finance minister of the day. Second, we know that consultations took place much later this year than they have in past years. Those who are familiar with Yukon government procedures know that most budget-making decisions are made several months before the budget is tabled. Those who are familiar with the budget-making process know that the departments and the ministers have their wish lists on the table before even the Sears pre-Christmas wish book arrives in town. With that in mind, it's hard to accept the minister's claim about a made-in-Yukon budget that is, in her words, about everyday lives of Yukoners.

The minister simply did not start early enough or take enough time to develop a budget that truly reflects the current needs and priorities of Yukon people.

In her speech last week, the minister told us that budgets are chapters in the progress of people. Those were her words. This budget, she told us, is the first chapter that her government has written. Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe we should have stopped at the table of contents. If this is all we can come up with after almost a year, don't expect the next three chapters that her government has written to make this book a best-seller.

In fact, if these first chapters are any example of what the whole Liberal book will look like, it should be recommended as bedtime reading for people who have trouble sleeping, Mr. Speaker. This budget does not meet the traditional requirements of a certain celebration: something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue. Instead, what we have is something old, something older, mostly borrowed, and nothing new. This is merely a patchwork of programs inherited from the previous government, juggled around, and given new names. A nip here, a tuck there, add a little and take a little, and you can pretend that we have a brand new quilt, Mr. Speaker. I will go into that in more detail a bit later.

Those of us who are part of the previous government should be flattered, I suppose. Perhaps we would be if this budget provided any evidence that this Liberal government has any idea of its own. Or that it knows what it is doing with the initiatives that it has borrowed.

On the first page of the budget speech, the minister repeats the Liberals seven-point mantra from the throne speech: economy, health care, addictions, land claims, devolution, infrastructure and confidence in government. She goes on to say that this budget works toward making these commitments a reality - Lib-speak spin of the week.

The first amendment that the official opposition introduced to this budget should be the speech itself. To make the sentence more accurate, it should read: this budget contributes mostly nothing toward making these commitments a reality, other than what the previous governments have already done.

Mr. Speaker, the budget speech goes on to pay lip service to the fact that the Yukon is part of a larger economic picture. It notes that the American economy is slowing down, and it accepts somewhat optimistic forecasts that Canada's economy will weather this storm.

One thing it does not do is recognize the impact of future transfer payments from the steady decline in the territory's population under this Liberal government. There's no sign of this downward trend coming to an end, and the national census being taken later this spring will no doubt paint a very bleak picture in terms of our population. Yet, in spite of that evidence, the Finance minister's tune is still, "Don't worry, be happy."

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's hard not to worry when you see the situation growing even worse with every new set of monthly figures from the stats branch. And it's hard not to worry when you see more and more people pulling up stakes and leaving the territory because they have lost faith in this government's ability to manage the economy.

It's hard not to worry when the Finance minister and her colleagues are so caught up with themselves that they either don't notice or don't care how bad things are here in the Yukon and how bad things could become.

How else can we explain the minister's modest expression of concern about how economic conditions in Canada, as a whole, might affect the formula financing grant. There was not one word about the impact that a smaller population will have on the tax revenue from the territorial resources, and not one word about the impact of a smaller population and smaller transfer payments from the federal government down the road.

Don't worry; be happy; everything's okay. That's what the Liberals want you to believe. That's Lib-speak. It's the spin of the week.

Last fall, we urged this government to take immediate and decisive action. We asked them to introduce a supplementary budget that would create badly needed jobs this winter so that more Yukon workers and their families would be able to stay here and earn a decent living. In spite of our urgings, the Liberal government did nothing. The supplementary budget, which is large - the $37 million tabled last fall - was mostly about government spending on itself, not addressing the problems of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very disappointed to see that this new budget for the fiscal year 2001-02 is not much different. And once again, we have record spending - a total of $538 million worth, including a contingency fund of $2.5 million, which is probably earmarked for something. This is where Lib-speak gets interesting. According to the Finance minister, the budget for 2001-02 includes a projected deficit of $24.1 million for the year. And she says that this will leave an accumulated surplus, or a savings account, of only $6 million as of March 31, 2002.

Let's take a closer look at these numbers. Let's look especially at the expected lapses - in other words, the money that's put into the budget for a given year but doesn't get spent in that year. What the Finance minister has done is include the lapses when it's convenient to her but not include them when they're not convenient.

In this case, she has chosen to underestimate the lapses of the 2000-01 fiscal year and ignore the lapses from the 2001-02 fiscal year altogether. According to Lib-speak, at the end of the current year - about a month from now, - the government will have about $30 million in their savings account and, once the bills for the current year are tallied up, they expect the savings account will grow to approximately $45 million. And you have to remember that this is the same government that insisted that it had a much larger accumulated surplus this year than it actually did. According to the Liberal math, the savings account was anywhere from $14 million to the actual figure of $64 million, which the Auditor General of Canada confirmed in October.

Now, the Lib-speak line is that there was only $30 million in the savings account at the end of this year, plus $15 million in lapsed funding. When you consider the commitments that the Liberal government haven't lived up to in the NDP budget that they adopted, it doesn't take much of a calculator to figure out the unspent money from this year, which would actually be much higher than normal. The lapses from the Mayo school fiasco alone are probably running close to $5 million. With more money going into the 2001-02 fiscal year and lapses from the year taken into account, the accumulated surplus at the end of March 2002 will actually be much more than the $6 million that the minister talks about.

So, why would the minister use that figure? There are probably a couple of possibilities.

Either she doesn't yet understand how the budget projection works or doesn't fit in with the Liberal agenda to use the real figures.

This Liberal government has certainly demonstrated its willingness to cry poverty when it wants to hold public demands in check. The Finance minister herself talked over and over again about fiscal responsibility. In fact, in her speech last Thursday about sound fiscal management and good use of taxpayers' money - and in that same paragraph in which she changes her mind about deficit financing and finally admits that drawing down the surplus is not necessarily a bad thing. In that respect, we should acknowledge the minister's growing understanding of public finance. At the same time, we should encourage her not to get too carried away and let the savings account get too close to the bottom to deal with any contingencies that may arise.

According to the budget speech, this budget, which focuses on rebuilding the Yukon's economy, we are told that it includes a substantial seven-percent increase in net capital spending, as well as direct spending on job creation. Surely that's a good thing, given how little attention this government has paid to the economy and job creation so far. But let's translate that, and you'll notice that the Finance minister's exact words were: "a substantial seven-percent increase in net capital spending over last year's main estimates and direct spending on job creation."

First of all, when the minister talks about increases in net capital spending, she's simply saying that the government is using slightly more money of its own for this purpose. That's because there is less coming in as a direct recovery from somewhere else. In this case, it's less money coming in; it's less U.S. money this year being spent on the Shakwak project. And if you believe in Lib-speak - and we certainly don't , Mr. Speaker - you are supposed to be impressed by the fact that there is $106 million worth of capital spending in this budget. Well, here's a news flash for the Finance minister: that $106 million is exactly the same as the actual capital spending in the 1999-2000 fiscal year.

When you consider how much fuel prices and other business costs have gone up in that time, the actual dollar value of capital projects in the coming year will be less than it was in 1999 and 2000. In fact, the budget speech even contains a chart showing that the percentage of the total government expenditures going toward capital projects has actually gone down in this budget to just below 20 percent. So when you strip away all of the Lib-speak, the pattern is clear. More spending on government operation and maintenance and less spending on capital projects.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that the official opposition does not buy into the notion that the previous Liberal government or the Yukon Party has, that O&M is good and capital is bad.

Spending on programs that truly benefit Yukon people is an important part of providing good government. And I'd like to go on the record as saying that there are programs in this budget that we do support, especially the ones in the Health and Social Services field. There are other programs where we have concerns that there might be too much emphasis on administration and not enough on actual program delivery, and we'll be going into that area in considerable depth during departmental debate.

I should also make it clear that our party does not buy into the notion that jobs in the public sector are somehow not real jobs.

The Yukon is blessed with very hardworking and dedicated public employees, including teachers, school administrators, health care professionals and a variety of others, who provide important frontline services to Yukon people. Their contribution to the Yukon economy is vital, and they deserve to be treated with respect.

Having said that, I would like to return briefly to the Lib-speak in the minister's budget speech on the matter of private jobs. It was raised today in Question Period. When you look carefully at this section, Mr. Speaker, you'll see that the minister's actual words, "capital spending set out in this budget that has been tabled today will sustain almost 700 full-time private sector jobs." It does not say "create" - it says "sustain" jobs. The reality is that there is little or no hard evidence to suggest that this budget will create any jobs over and above the recurring, seasonal jobs in construction that traditionally flow from the government spending.

We will also be going into that area, of course, in much more detail in the departmental debate. And let me just say that, before you fall for the Lib-speak, it's important to look at what this government has done so far. A few examples should do.

The Liberal government has fumbled a major capital project in its first year - the Mayo school construction. They also backed away from offering any winter works programs this year, claiming that it had no money and it wanted to review proven programs like fire smart and the community development fund. It put the previous government's aggressive effort to expand and diversify the Yukon's economy through the training and investment strategy on the back burner. It closed the doors to guaranteed access to tidewater in Alaska for Yukon resources and manufactured goods. Now, with this budget the Liberal government is diluting the commitments of job creation projects in Yukon communities even further by cutting a very important program that was supported by communities - the community development fund. They have cut that significantly - by one third, at least - and increased the time it will take to make funding decisions on that program. I should also point out a glaring example of Lib-speak in the minister's reference to fire smart funding during her pre-budget consultation during which the minister claims her government heard concerns about why the previous government failed to set aside any money for this fund in last year's budget. Well, the minister is just plain wrong, and she knows it.

The previous government's practice was to provide funding for fire smart through the community development fund and they also have made commitments to do top-ups in the fall supplementary budget. With a surplus of $64 million last year, the minister could have done the same thing. The fact is she chose not to do so, and Yukon communities, of course, are the big losers.

In short, when you cut through the Lib-speak on economic development and job creation, the main message that comes through is this: mining, sure, if there's anybody left who wants to do it; roads, at least until the American money runs out. What about a pipeline? Maybe. Maybe even a railroad, if we cross our fingers and cross our hearts and don't cross the Americans. Oil and gas - if somebody else doesn't get all the business first. Forestry - if we have to and if the federal Liberals let us. And tourism, if we can come up with the right theme to attract them here and get them to stay a little longer and spend a little more.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this budget reflects a government that has, in my view, no vision of its own in its content and just rearranges deckchairs instead of steering a firm course into the future.

It is the budget of a government that believes you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, and maybe, if you put new names on things, takes credit for work someone else has done.

You can even fool all the people all the time. Income tax cuts are a great idea - an NDP idea - but we'll just keep that little fact to ourselves. Increased taxes on cigarettes? No, not an NDP idea. The NDP promised it would not raise taxes, and it didn't. That one is actually a Liberal original - to increase taxes. The trouble is that the thinking doesn't go far enough. According to the Finance minister, an extra two bits on a pack of cigarettes will persuade people to quit smoking cold turkey. That's just like the disgusting pictures the federal Liberals are counting on to do the same thing.

Along the way, this little cash grab that she mentioned will also put an extra $550,000 into the government's bank account. In the minister's words, additional revenue from this measure will improve the overall financial picture. Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker. Our caucus fully supports this government's goal of wanting to decrease the amount of use of tobacco, especially among young people. We know that tobacco is a killer and that there is a huge cost to individuals and society. It seems to be a double-standard that comes forward from the minister opposite. Here we are trying to encourage people in the Yukon to quit smoking, when we have all seen the pictures in the papers and the media of the Premier standing beside the Prime Minister, trying to sell cigarettes in China.

We laughed at that, too.

Since the Liberal government has decided to use tax increases to fight tobacco use, I have a suggestion for the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health, and I'm sure that our Health critic would agree on this. Instead of putting the $550,000 that he expects to make on the tax increases to general revenue, I urge you to consider putting the money directly into programs to help smokers overcome that deadly addiction. Perhaps it could be used to reimburse people who are successful in quitting for the cost of prescription and stop-smoking aids, such as Zyban.

As I said earlier, the official opposition will have no trouble supporting many of the program funding measures in this budget, particularly in the area of Health and Social Services. That support is due largely to the fact that so many of these expenditures are extensions of what the previous NDP government was already doing. And I'm pleased to note, for example, that this government has made a commitment to maintain stable funding for the Child Development Centre and the Whitehorse General Hospital. When we were on that side of the House, we increased the funding to the Child Development Centre and the Hospital Corporation.

Somewhere in the Lib-speak, however, we seem to have lost track of last year's budget commitments to provide capital and O&M funding for the CT scan unit at the hospital. We will, of course, be pursuing this matter again with the minister in this sitting.

Mr. Speaker, the additional funding to Kaushee's Place in Whitehorse, to the Help and Hope for Families Society in Watson Lake and to the women's shelter in Dawson City is also welcome news. While we all wish for the day when such shelters are not necessary, it is good to see the important work they do for Yukon families being recognized.

I'm also pleased to see increased funding for the victim services and programs for abusive spouses, as well as the proposed new line-of-life program to help seniors in emergencies. I look forward to hearing the details of those programs, of course, from the Minister of Health and Social Services.

At the same time, it was disappointing not to see a commitment to new, stable, long-term funding agreements with other non-governmental organizations. I hope the Minister of Health and Social Services will be able to bring forward some good news on this front during this sitting.

Another area of disappointment is a rather paltry sum that has been set aside for recruiting and retaining health care professionals. The shortage of doctors and nurses across Canada, particularly in the northern and remote regions, has become acute, and the competition with jurisdictions such as Alberta is intense. The minister's speech indicates that the government intends to announce further measures to attract medical professionals in the next few months, and I urge the government not to delay in getting concrete initiatives in place as quickly as possible.

This brings us to another Lib-speak and the habit of rewriting history, which has become a hallmark of this Liberal government. I am referring to the announcement, or should I say reannouncement, of funding for the new continuing care facility in Whitehorse.

In order to save money over the long term, our government decided to complete construction of the 96-bed facility at once. Those are the Finance minister's words, Mr. Speaker, not mine. And they would be fine words, indeed, if they conveyed anything new. But the simple truth behind the Lib-speak is that the 96-bed facility was and is an initiative of the previous government, not this one. Once again we see a government with no plan and no vision of its own, taking credit for work that was done by others. Again, we might feel flattered if we had more confidence in this government's ability to follow through.

It is interesting to note that Yukon no longer enjoys the status of spending the second highest amount per capita on health care in Canada. We have now slipped to third place, behind Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. And with the federal government starting to restore funding in health care and education, another interesting pattern is emerging. Under the previous government, our spending on education and health was not only maintained, but even went up, at a time when Ottawa was cutting transfers to these areas. Now, the trend is being reversed. Ottawa is spending more and the Yukon government is spending less. The cuts to O&M spending in education for both public schools and advanced education are quite significant. And I think that it is fair to say that it is not a healthy trend.

Mr. Speaker, just as we, on this side, fully support efforts to reduce tobacco use, we also fully support meaningful efforts to combat the alcohol and drug addictions. Having said that, here we are confronted with basically another classic example of Lib-speak. This time, we have another reannouncement of a reannouncement, based on an announcement the Minister of Health and Social Services made many months ago, and I am, of course, referring to his pet project, the alcohol and drug secretariat. That leads me to suspect that the close relationship between the Ottawa Liberals and the Yukon Liberals has, at least, taught this government one thing: how to spin the same story eight times in eight different ways in the hope of fooling people into believing it's something new.

The Finance minister's friend and counterpart, Paul Martin, is famous for this technique, so much so, in fact, that it's almost impossible to tell where Martin's budget ends and the next one begins.

This is what our famous minister had to say last week, "Today, I am announcing that the funding for the secretariat has been set at $2.36 million for the first full year of operation." What the minister should have said is: "Today, I am announcing an additional $250,000 to set up a new, centralized bureaucracy to coordinate and deliver alcohol and drug services." That's what the announcement should have said.

Time alone will tell how effective this new secretariat will be, or how much of the funding that is set aside will simply be gobbled up by administrative costs.

Certainly, on this side of the House, we would like to see more emphasis put on programming, and particularly on the community-based alcohol and drug treatment programs, and we will be pursuing this matter with the minister quite vigorously. And, with some reservation, we do support the additional attention this government intends to pay to the troubling problem of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects.

Our support would probably be much stronger if the budget actually included a financial commitment to go along with these fine words of the budget speech. As with many other initiatives, however, this government seems to be waiting for the federal government to make the first move.

Mr. Speaker, it's well-known that two of this Liberal government's seven priorities are settling outstanding First Nation land claims and achieving devolution of the Northern Affairs program from the federal government to the Yukon.

For that reason, it is mystifying to see so little of this budget dedicated to reaching those objectives. In the case of land claims, for example, total funding for land claims and the implementation secretariat in the Executive Council Office has increased only $100,000, or, two percent. This also includes the long-delayed development assessment process, which we have heard very little about ever since this Liberal government has taken office.

Intergovernmental relations, apart from First Nations relations, has gone down by 13 percent. To translate that from Lib-speak into something more accurate would seem to suggest how much real importance this government is placing on the devolution file.

There is a statement in this part of the budget speech that we intend to pursue in some depth later. The Finance minister said that preparations to assume the responsibilities include a new deputy ministers review committee. It is a review committee that is actually examining the renewal of the Yukon government incorporating devolution to ensure a citizen-oriented administration. At the same time as spending on intergovernmental affairs is going down and both the development assessment and land claims secretariats have modest increases, the budget for Cabinet management support has gone up by 63 percent and government audit services shot up by a staggering 105 percent. I will return to these items in detail later, along with the so-called strategic management unit, which is supposed to help the government's goal of restoring confidence in government.

This brings us to the section of the budget speech dedicated to developing infrastructure - not the section on the environment, because there isn't one, and not the section on education, because there isn't one of those either. I guess those aren't really the priorities of this government.

Certainly, the budget speaks loudly by its almost complete silence on those topics.

Now, when we look at this government's spending plans for community infrastructure, what we see at work is the Liberal jellybean theory of planning. What the minister has done is sprinkle a number of jellybeans around the territory so that she can say that every community got a little something. Here are a few examples mentioned in the budget speech: $35,000 for a fire hall in Pelly Crossing; $15,000 for an electric fence around the Liard First Nation community dump; $50,000 for riverbank erosion in Old Crow, and $55,000 for improving Ross River's water supply. Those four items, which are pretty typical of how this government has responded to community requests, come to a grand total of $155,000 worth of infrastructure projects through the Community and Transportation Services capital budget. What the budget speech didn't say is that that same department will be getting the same amount - $153,000 to be exact - for computer equipment and system for its own use. That equation pretty well sums up the spending priorities of this Liberal government, and we'll be very interested to receive the Finance minister's list of what was requested in each of the pre-budget meetings so that we can compare that to what the various communities and organizations actually received.

On big-ticket items, there is more money for highways. We agree with the Finance minister that the jobs this spending creates will be welcome to our current, depressed economic climate.

At the same time, the official opposition will have some very pointed questions for the Finance minister and the Minister of Community and Transportation Services about what is not in this budget.

For example, where is the long-term commitment to fixing the Tagish Road, which was in the NDP's long-term capital plan? Where is the $1 million a year that our government identified for improvements to the Campbell Highway? If those items are in there, they are well-hidden. Why? Because this government has not bothered to present a long-term plan for capital spending. When they were on this side of the House, they criticized us for not including a long-term plan in the first two budgets that we presented. Now the shoe is on the other foot. And in their haste to patch together a budget following a very late start on pre-budget consultation, maybe they simply ran out of time, or maybe the Finance minister is waiting until this fall, when she comes back with a separate capital budget as she has promised in her speech.

On the positive side, I am glad to see that the government has agreed to honour the NDP commitments to long-term funding agreements for recreation facilities in Whitehorse and Dawson City. It still remains to be seen how the question of funding for sewage treatment in Dawson City and Carmacks will be resolved. And it is good to see more money being put in to road-side brush and weed clearing, which is a problem that we brought forward to this government's attention during last year's very wet summer season. And as the MLA for the Mayo-Tatchun area, I am also glad to see a needed investment of $1.1 million for the maintenance funding for the Silver Trail, and I know that the community of Mayo has also asked this government to pay attention and spend some money on the Silver Trail, especially between Mayo and Keno.

I'm also encouraged that this government appears willing to honour the commitments made by the NDP for recreation facilities in Carmacks. At the same time, the Liberals have appeared to abandoned the priority list for the school capital construction. As a result, planning work on both the Pelly and the Carmacks schools, which was to start this year and the next, has been moved, or been bumped, off the priority list and replaced with the expansion projects on the two Whitehorse schools.

Now, with the Mayo school project out to tender, we have a number of questions on this side of the House about where the government plans to go next in terms of school projects, and how it will be making its decisions - whether or not it will be honouring the priority list that was put forward by the department and the chair of the school councils from across the Yukon.

Another major infrastructure project that raised many questions is the Mayo to Dawson City electricity transmission line. The budget speech acknowledges that this is a multi-million dollar project, but the government has yet to explain what the impact of this expenditure will have on the financial picture of the Yukon Development Corporation.

One of the key questions to the electricity ratepayers is what this megaproject means for the future of the rate stabilization fund, which has kept electricity rates stable for the past three years.

I have two final observations on infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. First, it is good to hear that the Yukon stands to benefit from participating in the federal infrastructure program. Still, we have yet to see just how far the expected $2.4 million will actually go in terms of infrastructure for water and sewer and solid waste management projects. Secondly, I should point out another classic example of Lib-speak. Here's what the Finance minister said: "During our budget consultation, we received a request from Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation for resources to be committed to Tombstone Park. As a result, $255,000 has been set aside for work on the interpretive centre and for a seasonal park ranger for Tombstone Park." That's the Liberal spin. Now, here's the translation: $260,000 for work on the Tombstone Park was identified this year in the NDP government's long-term capital plan. It was included in the main estimates for 2000-01. The good news is that the Liberals have at least decided to honour the commitment, and the bad news is that, once again, they are trying to pass the idea off as their own.

Mr. Speaker, that brings us to the final section of the budget speech that we heard last week - the section about restoring confidence in government. And I mentioned earlier that there were some expenditures in the Executive Council Office that have a bearing on this important goal. One is the internal audit unit set up to review the efficiency and effectiveness of programs. The other is the strategic management unit designed to help programs manage and review and update programs and implement accountability frameworks.

If these two units do what is claimed, they might, in fact, contribute to public confidence in this Liberal government, which it sadly needs. However, with a combined price tag of $602,000 in the coming fiscal year, it remains to be seen if this will be money well-spent. A new bureaucracy to check up on the bureaucracy might not be the best way to go in the long run.

Now, we have already seen major increases in the Executive Council Office's O&M budget for Cabinet support, probably in part to cover the high-flying habits of the Premier and her colleagues. If we finally get to see results, and this government starts making real progress on its seven priorities, that will improve public confidence.

If the government starts demonstrating that it has some vision, that it knows where it's going and how to get there, especially on the economic front, that will improve public confidence. And if the Lib-speak ends and the government starts talking straight with Yukon people, that will improve public confidence. Most of all, if this Liberal government starts really listening to people and treating them with respect, that will also help improve public confidence. And, Mr. Speaker, that includes my translation of the budget speech from Lib-speak to something more accurate.

Certainly, before I conclude, I do have to recognize that, within the budget and in my riding, there are some benefits that will be going to the communities that have been outstanding for a long time. The big one, of course, is the Mayo school.

Although the budget reflects $2.2 million this year, it would have been nice to have simple wording within the budget that shows the carry on, which is going to be a revote from the previous budget, to be included as a total package for the school. I think that anybody reading the budget is wondering where these large items are and why they weren't even mentioned. And, like I said earlier, there seems to be hidden messages throughout the whole budget about the amount of dollars that the Yukon government actually has and what is on paper in front of them to look at.

There was a lot of mention about the Campbell Highway and improvements that need to be there. Some recognition was given to the Campbell Highway, but I can't help but notice that even with the NDP budget, when the Liberals took over the administration of that budget, they did not carry on the continuation work that the NDP had. And I know that the Member for Faro is very, very familiar with that road and the chipsealing that was put in place from the junction in Carmacks which was to continue. And now we are back to patching up the roads in spots. And it would have been nice to have that continued on and at least give us some really good road to Little Salmon Lake and beyond, and look at the major safeguards and safety issues that are on the road beyond Little Salmon and right around to the other side.

When the Premier mentioned that there was $1 million for the Carmacks recreation centre, I thought that this was new monies, but after going back and checking through the NDP budget, it was broken down into two years so that we were not bringing down our surplus dollars in that year, and we recognized this as long-term funding.

But what I have been told is that the project, because of its size and so on, went overbudget even before construction began, by some $800,000. The Premier herself told this House that she would not be letting any project that has been underway, letting any municipalities or organizations left holding the bag. And I hope that comes true. Maybe that should be reflected, even as a capital project, if the member wants to bring that forward in the fall session under the capital budget.

What I also did not see in here was a follow-up on the school councils' priority list of planning for completions of two other schools that have been on their list, by the department and the chair of the school councils. One was the school in Carmacks, and the other was the one in Pelly Crossing. I have not seen any planning money in this budget at all. Now it has slipped to another year. And, of course, the question, when I go back to my riding is: why wasn't it reflected there? Certainly, we can get some really clear answers from the Minister of Education on that.

I also didn't see any mention - and this becomes a bit of a problem, and that's why I mention it so much - of the long-term plans that government should be putting in place. There is none from the Liberal government, and I cannot take anything back to my community to say that there are monies in place for planning or whatnot. There has been strong support for infrastructure to communities, but I have not seen any commitments in the form of dollars to the sewage system in Carmacks. This was talked about by several people on the government side, and I was surprised not to see that reflected.

The Selkirk First Nation is not a municipality; they don't get block funding, as we all know, and they have to plan, work with governments and departments, and work harder than most to try to meet the needs of the community. I know that they came forward to the government with a five-year capital plan, and one of their first priorities was the fire hall in Pelly Crossing. It is good to see money in there. I don't know what the whole project is. I do know that the Village of Mayo had been asking for a new fire truck, and they followed up with a letter that came from the Department of Community and Transportation Services from the previous government about doing repairs to the truck, and when its life expectancy has run out, it will be replaced. That's up and gone, and it hasn't been replaced yet. So I hope that the government takes note of that.

Also, Keno has not been mentioned. It is a destination for tourists. As most of you know, if you go up there, there's lots to see there. It's not a very big place, of course. As far as communities go, they're not mentioned at all for receiving any type of money for any improvements to infrastructure in that area. I was disappointed in that, and I know the members opposite will be raising their concerns about project commitments in their communities, and I look forward to debating this budget in the departments in much detail. When you look at the budget that the Liberals put forward and the budget speech presented by the Premier, and you look at what the NDP produced in 2000-01, you can see the flow right into the Liberal budget. That's good to see, because that shows that the programs that were introduced by the NDP and the projects have had a lot of strength to them and a lot of meaning behind them. Although they were criticized by the Liberal government in the past, they have now come to realize that these are important and they have chosen to continue on with some of these projects.

That's a good sign, although the important ones have been cut - like the community development fund, which means some areas have a tough time accessing any type of money. For example, Stewart Crossing needs a place for their children, like a youth centre. This type of fund would have been ideal for that. I hope that, in the future, the government will top up the community development fund, although they broke it down by having the arts fund and saying that different types of organizations could apply to this fund. It's just not the same any more; all of a sudden it's made tougher.

That basically concludes my response to the Premier's budget speech. I know that many others have a lot to say on this, and I look forward to hearing some of the responses from the government side, too.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      To begin with, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Premier Pat Duncan for delivering an informative and captivating budget. This is long in coming, Mr. Speaker. It's a budget that captivates and translates Yukoners' needs and future. It is rather interesting that the member opposite talked about the supplementary budget a bit in his response. And the member opposite forgot to mention that over three-quarters of that was to pay their VISA bill. That's why it was such a huge supplementary budget, because the VISA bill had been outstanding for the last three and a half years. So we had the courage to pay it off.

And the other point I noticed is that the opposition still believes that they are government for some reason. They are constantly referring to their own projects and to what they have done and where they have been. And, of course, we obviously know where they are now. So, Mr. Speaker, it is very important to understand the background and the backdrop for the response.

I am confident that the members for this House really enjoyed the speech that the Premier gave us last Thursday. This considerate action by the Premier to have the speech done on a Thursday was for all of us, in that we at least had the weekend to prepare our response. That was a very productive move by the Premier.

On a more personal note, I spoke to many people over the weekend, and they expressed to me that they were glad that they had heard the budget speech. I was up in the gallery, after I went into the foyer after the speech, and spoke to many of my colleagues up there at least until the last one left. And for many of them, they had never heard a Speech from the Throne or a Premier's speech, so it was really insightful for them.

They believe more of that should happen. The speech has definitely reached Yukoners, and it definitely has reached a level of awareness that Yukoners were involved in this building of the future, as was shared here earlier by many of our supporters, by going out to the communities and finding out what they wanted. And where they want to go in the future is very important. We did not assume, Mr. Speaker, that we had all the answers.

This budget speech is about Yukoners, and each one of us on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, has taken the time, the energy and the insightfulness of sharing and having our constituents share with us what they would like to see in the future. I think it is a landmark for the Yukon, Mr. Speaker, to have the caucus on this side involved with the development of the future, along with our government support people and the people who hopefully make it happen.

We have heard some familiar thoughts and some unique thoughts. Mind you, the Yukon is unique. Its people are unique; they have wide-ranging opinions, and we're very thankful to Yukoners for having the energy and the support and the openness, which, I think, is the key thing - the openness and the honesty to come forward with their opinions.

In days gone by, Mr. Speaker, I think many Yukoners felt that they couldn't be honest about where we should go in the future, but I really believe that, this time around, Yukoners felt that they could give us their honest opinions about where we should be.

Our Yukon community visits also provided us with some valuable insights, and, of course, we have asked for their top priorities. We listened. We asked about the service of government because we are a service-oriented party. We want to see government service people and, Mr. Speaker, this is what the people of the Yukon are saying: the government is there to serve them.

We did not promise the sun, the moon, the stars, but we did promise them a hope, a future.

The budget delivers on Yukon priorities - priorities that this government has been talking about for the past 10 months. We are talking about 10-year priorities, Mr. Speaker, not three-and-a-half/four-year priorities. Unfortunately, that has been the rule of many governments in the past and it has gotten us nowhere. We have politicized almost every little bit of the Yukon, which I think is unfair. Yukoners want to be part of the solution.

Priorities like rebuilding the Yukon economy. Yes, slow in coming, Mr. Speaker, mainly because of, I would suggest, the attitude of former governments as to how it should be done. Also because of mining, which is way beyond many of us, but we have done our bit there to try to fix it. Addressing health care, which is fundamental to all of us. Addressing drug and alcohol addictions. I am very pleased to hear from the members opposite that they want to ask a lot of questions about drugs and alcohol because we have been asking questions for years. Hopefully, we can collectively come up with some answers. The big problem we have is that it has been ignored for so long.

Devolution, land claims and infrastructure that the leader of the second party spoke so eloquently about - yes, Mr. Speaker, we, as a Liberal Party, are about infrastructure for long-term benefits.

And last but not least - and, by the way, it's on a horizontal plane that we have our priorities - is restoring confidence in government.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we have involved our government in setting our direction, setting our future and setting this budget, I think, demonstrates that we are very positive about involving all sectors of the Yukon economy.

These priorities can help create a healthy Yukon and a well-balanced Yukon. These priorities focus on maintaining what is working in government and improving the areas of government that need improving.

Before I got involved in government, Mr. Speaker, I felt that I had some knowledge and understanding of budgets and how governments operate. Since I joined this government and have been in government, I found there is a vast difference in really understanding what the demands are on all sectors, in order to present a balanced picture to Yukoners. It's a very, very difficult task.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we do the right things first. If we don't, we pay in the long run. You can't buy people off. Unfortunately, in past governments, that may have been what was going on. We have to really look at how we build infrastructure and that we involve Yukoners honestly in the whole understanding of governance. It's not just 11 people on this side and six or seven on the other side deciding the fate of the Yukon. It's all Yukoners deciding the fate of Yukoners.

As I said earlier, it's our role in government to serve people, to help people understand and do whatever it takes to see that government does its job.

I will attempt to do this today by putting the Yukon's budget into perspective. When we hosted many of the meetings in my riding, many of my constituents did not understand surpluses and deficits. I did not understand them, Mr. Speaker. It is not one of those topics out there on a daily basis.

It's jargon, and it means very little unless you're in it all the time, Mr. Speaker, so we have to find ways of communicating with our public about what government is all about. We have to be able to demonstrate to Yukoners that it's not our words that make government nor make policy - it's actually doing things. It's important for me and my colleagues and my caucus members to relay the facts about government in an easily understood manner, and that's going to be the challenge for all of us, Mr. Speaker.

Where does the Yukon fit in the picture of Canada? Obviously, if the economy is doing well in other provinces, why is the Yukon not doing as well? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are probably many reasons for it. We are very dependent upon the federal government, and we're dependent mainly because of our population and our jurisdiction - it's so large and so vast. We are also very dependent upon primary activities like mining, which, when the market goes down in the rest of Canada, obviously - or the rest of the world - we pay a heavy price here.

It's very important for us to put all things into perspective. It also has something to do with looking at how formulas are put together - formulas that translate into dollars in our economy. One of the issues is specific funding like the Canada health and social transfers, which are also based on population. When you have a small population, you get a small amount of money. If you have increasing costs that are escalating at a rapid rate, then you have to find ways of paying down your expenditures. It's very important, Mr. Speaker, to understand that if we don't have these dollars to pay off our bills - we are a government that cannot go into debt; therefore we have to look at ways and means of balancing it.

It's important for Yukoners to know that there isn't a bottomless pit to our funding. Unfortunately, we are not in the situation where we took over a budget or a surplus of $80 million, like the last government did, Mr. Speaker. They had a surplus of $80 million and, of course, we ended up with a surplus of $64 million, as the Auditor General says, and $35 million of that $64 million had been spent by the former government. So we were down to $30 million. So there you are, Mr. Speaker.

What the opposition does is make a picture out there that there's a $60-million surplus. There never was a $60-million surplus. They never share with the public that they had spent half of it before they even stepped out of office, and I think, Mr. Speaker, they spent most of it between April 1 and April 17, because, by that time, we were in deep trouble when it came to paying off our debts.

In this budget, we have increased our capital spending by over seven percent, and we're looking at infrastructure - I think the members opposite are very pleased about that - especially roads that, under their watch, weren't looked after. They depended on the Shakwak to inflate their road money, which was American money, not ours.

Capital spending means new projects, not salaries. We are attempting to rebuild the economy through our mining initiatives, through the Minister of Economic Development - again looking at some very hard work done with the federal government to bring about a little more of a challenge, a little more of an incentive to reinvest into mining. So we thank our Premier for that.

There will be over $3.4 million in new projects and programs that will create jobs for Yukoners and, of course, oil and gas. We are just moving ahead - trucks going up and down the highway. It's just unbelievable. Again, it's because of the openness that this government has. We are very -

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker:      The Member for Watson Lake, on a point of order.

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Speaker, I feel so good today I want to be helpful to the minister. The trucks that are heading up and down the highway are heading to the Northwest Territories, so maybe he should correct the record because they're not coming to the Yukon.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      I find there is no point of order here. It's merely a dispute between members.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I find again, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite can't take any facts for what they are. Many of these trucks are going to Eagle Plains. That's why the lodge there is full, right up until break-up. We have 60 people working there. I'm not sure the members opposite know that, or if they even want to know that, because it also shows that we're doing something.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to a lot of people. I have really tried to connect with Yukoners, and I think our caucus and our government believe that that's the way we make change.

I know for a fact that many of my colleagues felt very positive about the responses they got from Yukoners about how this budget should be prepared and about the future. They really tried to understand that putting budgets together is not a simple matter, and the more we translate these issues, Mr. Speaker, into what Yukoners can really go along with is very important.

Another initiative in the budget is the tourism stay-another-day program. The Minister of Tourism, my colleague, has worked very hard at trying to ensure that travellers will stay another day and this should translate into more dollars here for Yukoners.

Mr. Speaker, it's very important for us to understand that we're working very hard. In our 10 months we have done probably what no other government has done over their three- or four-year mandates. We have done so many successful ventures. We have people thinking positively. We have people looking at the Yukon and saying, "This is a place to invest."

The interesting thing about it, Mr. Speaker - the Member for Dawson speaks very loosely about his town. They have never been so busy, so obviously there are a lot of good things happening there. I think there are very few unemployed people there, so obviously something is happening that is correct. I think that one of the important parts about listening to Yukoners is really looking at how we, as government, can build together. And I think that the important fact for us is to try to develop what we feel are the important issues in our health care. We had many people respond to how we have packaged our - what they call "user-friendly" budget, because they believe that budgets have become so distant from the people that when they read them they don't know what is in them. And we have tried to do that, Mr. Speaker.

We have raised the tax on tobacco. I believe that this is a prevention method, and research and statistics show that that is the best way of doing it, along with all the other methods. It's not the only way, but it is one of the better ways. When it hits the pocket, people tend to think twice if maybe they want to do this. We know that smoke-related health care issues are among the highest in the health care system, and we have to start tackling those issues even much stronger than we have been in the past. We also have many rising costs in chemotherapy. We are doing many of our treatments right here in the Yukon, so those are rising costs that we have to try to really support.

We also know that we have a lot of issues in the whole area of our mental health. We need a lot of support and a lot of backup. We have a lot of resource people. We have a lot of people working very hard at trying to include Yukoners in the development of building their own vision of how we should work together.

As the leader of the official opposition pointed out, the chart on page 10 of the budget speech puts Yukoners in third place for per capita spending on health. Hallelujah, Mr. Speaker. We want to lower that even more, and we still want to offer the best health care system in the country. We don't want to be the highest spenders, Mr. Speaker. We want to look for better ways of ensuring that Yukoners take control of their own health and believe in prevention versus spending all the dollars after the fact.

What the member opposite also mentioned is that last year we were second. There seems to be a little NDP denial going on there, Mr. Speaker. Our position is that health care expenditure is only reflected by the fact that the difference between this year and last year is that Nunavut was not on the chart last year. So obviously there's a misunderstanding there.

The fact remains that we are among the top three in Canada's per capita expenditures on health, Mr. Speaker. We do spend a lot of dollars on a per capita basis. For the first time in the history of the Yukon, we're spending over $125 million, which has been dedicated to the Department of Health and Social Services for operations and maintenance. Now, if that isn't an indicator of maintaining our health care system, then I don't know what is. As we mentioned earlier, our Liberal commitment to maintain stable funding to the Whitehorse General Hospital still stands. We are transferring over $19.5 million to the Hospital Corporation.

We are also very much aware of the situation with doctors and nurses all over the country. This government has done far more in the recruitment of doctors and nurses than any previous government, and yet it's not enough. We know that, and we appreciate the opposition pointing that out to us. It's not enough. We're in a crisis state, Mr. Speaker, in some of our health care areas. So we've got to work long and hard. We're working with the doctors; we're working with the nurses. We have put forward some initiatives there to work closely with them. They want to be partners in our health care system.

We have set aside $140,000. Is it enough? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, but we are now working on building that next stage of how we work with our partners. We don't do this willy-nilly, Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Dawson would like to think - just go out and do it. We actually talk to our partners. We actually get feedback from our partners.

Other areas of need in Health and Social Services are those services provided for residence for children. We cannot ignore the growing concern, and we have over $300,000 for that particular support.

Our social network is important to Yukoners. We met with the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre, the Yukon Aboriginal Women's Association, the Yukon Status of Women Council, the Help and Hope in Families Society in Watson Lake, and the Dawson shelter. The message was adequate funding to provide proper service. We have responded, Mr. Speaker. Kaushee's receives an additional $100,000 from this government. By the way, that's the first time in the last number of years that they get an increase. There is $62,000 for Help and Hope in Watson Lake. And I was just there in Watson Lake, talking to the people there. They are ecstatic with the Liberal government, that we deliver. And there is $62,000 for the Dawson shelter, Mr. Speaker. We have delivered.

We have also heard about the adequately resourced victim services and programming for abusive spouses - $155,000 through our Justice department. Again, Mr. Speaker, we have delivered.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the next item - I think past governments should be ashamed for not responding to this very important role that our foster parents play in the Yukon. They are some of our most important support people in our communities. They had not received an increase for 11 years. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, any government not giving these very worthwhile support people just a cost-of-living increase, just for clothing, just for the rates, the taxes. Many of these people - I spoke to them - they have felt that for years, they should have had at least some increase. It's maybe not what they wanted, the total amount, but it's a beginning. The first government in 11 years that is going to be dedicating $100,000 to increasing foster rates. We think that's marvellous in recognizing the work of these people.

Many non-profit organizations have not received increases to reflect an increase in demand for their services. Unfortunately, we are not able to respond to every NGO. We have listened to Teegatha'a Oh Zheh - $50,000 for staff and training. Again, another support for a very important service in our community. The Yukon Family Services Association will receive another $39,000. Many of the rural communities obviously know what that means. It means that they, themselves, will be seeing that kind of support because we have people going to the rural areas and we think it's very important that the rural areas have this kind of support. As you know, the CDC, the Child Development Centre, spends a lot of time in the rural areas. So does Yukon Family Services. We're very pleased with being able to announce increased funding for these very important organizations.

In the area of drug and alcohol services, we have put aside $2.36 million for the first full year of operation. Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in the history of the Yukon that we have put money into a separate secretariat to address this plague in our communities - the drug and alcohol plague. It's very important, Mr. Speaker, that we try to address these issues on a much higher profile than we have in the past. We have added another quarter of a million dollars to the regularly assigned dollars for drug and alcohol services, and this is to really look at how we, as a community, can start to build positive programs. Is that the total amount? I doubt it. It's the beginning.

At least, again, we as a government delivered. We said that addictions and substance abuse is a problem, and we have delivered. Are we finished? No, we have, I would say, another nine years to really maybe start to see some progress, because it is going to take 10 years to see some results.

The Liberal government recognizes that we need to do a better job treating Yukoners with addictions. I would just like to pass on something that I have mentioned to many people in my constituency and during my community visits. Last August, the review of the government's alcohol and drug services showed that there were problems in the way services were being delivered. The review provided some recommendations on how to provide better service and how to treat Yukoners more effectively. And in our first 10 months in government, we have delivered.

In order to move ahead, you need leadership, and if we continue to go the way we have gone in the past, nothing changes. So the whole objective in creating the secretariat was to address a new leadership that was directly answerable to the minister so that we can get some high profile support from all community members. And, again, this is a stage; it is not one of the final answers. We are not completely confident that everything will happen the way we have done it in the past; we are hoping to see changes. And that is the idea in not sort of closing all of the doors.

A careful consideration of Yukoners is very important for us in developing the future in alcohol and drug services. We are tackling this issue head-on. A quarter of a million of dollars is a quarter of a million dollars, and that is more money than past governments have put in that area. So I believe that we are delivering again.

Our goal is to be efficient and to be effective. We know we have old governments on side. We know that city governments, town governments and First Nation governments want to be part of the solution, but they need resources, they need support, and they're very optimistic about where we're going and how we're going to work together.

It's our goal to unite Yukoners in healing our communities, and it isn't clear, Mr. Speaker, but again, $250,000 is more money than has ever been put in drug and alcohol services in the past. It's very, very important that we recognize that.

We don't have all the answers, as a government. What we can do, Mr. Speaker, is try to open some doors so those people out there, being our Yukoners, can really contribute to the solutions.

When I hear people raise issues with children, adults or the disadvantaged, no matter how it comes out, I see it as a message for Yukoners that we have a job to do. It's not up to government to have all the answers. It's not up to certain individuals to have all the answers; it's up to all of us, as Yukoners, to have answers. We must use all our resources.

We have heard this from our community visits, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that I really enjoy visiting communities, because you're talking with people, face to face, and they have a lot to tell you about what really needs to happen. And this government has taken that on as one of its primary challenges in trying to ensure that we reflect what Yukoners want and need.

We heard from many Yukon communities and constituents that throwing money at a problem does not make the problem any better. That was one of our big problems in the past, Mr. Speaker. We have thrown money everywhere, but with no rhyme nor reason. Mr. Speaker, we are putting rhyme and reason to programs and to direction. We are trying to work with Yukoners.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ross River asks for examples. I'd be here probably for the next three days if I had to give him examples. That's not the objective of this exercise.

We have heard that Yukoners want honesty, they want transparency, and they want people to be involved. We'd have to look at the quality and structure of our program, and we're going to do this together, Mr. Speaker. We have to look at health care in the big picture, not the little picture. This problem of health care, this problem of governance, this problem of working with each other, is not somewhere in Ottawa. It's right here. It's us working together. We have to work collectively. We have to provide opportunities for people to respond to what we're doing right and what we're doing wrong. That shouldn't be a personal reflection. That should be a reflection on where we should go collectively.

As I said earlier, there is a limit to how many dollars we have, and we really have to look at how we spend them in the best interest of all Yukoners.

FAS/FAE, Mr. Speaker. This government, along with past governments - I think finally the last government recognized sort of halfway through its mandate that there was a problem with FAS/FAE and they actually even would speak about it aloud. Up until that point, they had to be sort of hit over the head, that there was a problem. We know that's a serious problem in our communities, and it's a problem that we have to keep addressing. It's a problem that we as Yukoners have to solve. The government can't solve it by itself, but we as a community can solve it.

I think the important part for us, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that when we're looking at health care, we look at it from the collective point of view. We have some very pressing problems throughout Canada.

Just recently, we mailed a report card to every Yukoner, and I have heard nothing but positives about our report card. A lot of Yukoners don't realize what our health care system is all about, and we probably were the first off the mark with this new initiative of reporting back to Yukoners. We are very pleased about how it turned out. Is it the masterpiece? Is it the perfect piece? I wouldn't think so. It's another way of trying to communicate with Yukoners. We're going to be doing a lot more of that in the future. Yukoners want to know how they can be contributors to a better system in the Yukon. It's not always with their hand out; they also want to have a hand up so they can give us some advice and give themselves some advice on how they can do a better job in their communities.

I think the other very important factor when you look at health care, Mr. Speaker, is the whole issue of how we can build what I call that future image. It's important to talk to our elders and our seniors, and draw from their experiences as to what has worked in the past and what they see wrong with our system and how we can better it for the future.

Our system isn't perfect, Mr. Speaker. We know that. Our costs are accelerating at an alarming rate, and remember, the pot is very small - a $6-million surplus in this budget. Any kind of major disaster would wipe that out in an instant. So we have had to be very frugal and we have had to be very cautious in how we spend our dollars, but I think we have done a great job in trying to build for the future.

I believe that we have looked at a number of other issues here that are going to lead us to a better health care system. Soon we will be looking at an active living promotion, which I think is very important for all of us. We as government and we as Yukoners want to be actively alive. We want to know what we can do for ourselves. I think this has been a movement that many of us believe is part of our lifestyles today, but we have to encourage more people to take this on as a way of building their own health. I think the important part for us is that we have to take ownership of our future. When I say "we" I mean the collective we - that's Yukoners, not the politicians on their own, because the politicians come and go. Yukoners are here forever. But we have to make sure that we give information to Yukoners so that good decisions can be made.

I think the important part for us is to ensure that we, as Yukoners, understand that they can be a part in the future. And we as a Liberal government have been working very hard at doing that. I would invite the members opposite to contribute to that visionary approach toward building for the future, rather than being, I would call it, destructive or negative. Be positive and offer solutions. Because I believe that together we can come up with ways of trying to build a better Yukon. I have heard from many seniors. I have been meeting with seniors over the last number of weeks, along with my colleagues, and it is very inspiring to listen to what they have to say about where we are at and where we should go. They believe very strongly that we have got one of the best health care systems in the country. They want to maintain that, but they also understand that it needs to be worked on, needs to be developed and brought into the 21st century, if we are going to call it that. We need to move on into the future because if we don't, we are not going to be able to afford our system. And this is why the whole emphasis in the Yukon and in Canada right now is to reassess our whole health care system.

It's not just going to go away. Yes, we have pressures; yes, we have challenges. We're not going to solve these by digging a hole and burying our head in the sand, Mr. Speaker. I think we have to be upfront about things that work very well. We have to be honest about things that are not working very well and see if we can better them. We just can't keep adding layer upon layer, Mr. Speaker and, unfortunately, sometimes governments can do that without realizing that they're not being efficient any more.

From my perspective, I believe this first Yukon Liberal budget is a good foundation for building that future. Is it perfect? I would be wrong in saying it was, but it's a good foundation for the future. It's open; it's transparent; it can be criticized; it can be improved; and I would invite the opposition members to contribute to that in a positive way. Good, solid suggestions, good, solid ideas, will not be turned away, but criticism for criticism's sake, just because you want the front lines somewhere, isn't going to buy any improvement. It has to be what I call "built in the Yukon, made by Yukoners."

Particularly in health care, we have shown that we believe in our health care system. We are going to be spending over $125 million. The last government started the extended care concept. We maintained it and we improved it. We added 24 more beds, Mr. Speaker, because we knew that we were going to need them by the time it was finished being built. So when good ideas come forth from whomever, we will build on them. We're not going to throw them away.

So, Mr. Speaker, that tells you that we are an inclusive government - ideas come from the bottom up, not from the top down.

I am very pleased to support this budget. I am very pleased to be a partner in helping craft this budget. I am very pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have also used and developed an idea here that all Yukoners can be involved in one way, shape or form. We think that's the way we have to go in the future, Mr. Speaker. The important part for us, when it comes to health care, is that it will affect all of us. And who knows when it will strike one of us, who knows when we'll need it. That's why it's there. It's an insurance plan for our future.

Speaker:      Order please. Will the minister please conclude his remarks.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier and my caucus colleagues for being partners in this process. I thank Yukoners. I thank the government people who helped us arrive at this budget, because this is what it was: a made-in-the-Yukon budget. And I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to say that this is the beginning of the 10-year foundation for good government and good delivery of services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, after sitting through the last presentation, I concluded that if the Yukon were full of greenhouses and if the information were funnelled into those greenhouses, it would allow everything contained therein to grow at an alarming rate, but such is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to this 2001-02 budget presented by this novice Liberal government.

And true to a Yukon Party position, I like to start off by offering a number of accolades for the areas where there is a welcomed increase in spending and then go on to critiquing what the budget will not do for Yukon.

The welcome news is, by and large, the increased funding for NGOs - women's facilities and such, victim services, the new lines of life. The welcome increase in funding is also recognized by the visitor industry - the increase in marketing, increase in support for a number of events. On the municipal front, the welcome news is that there's no reduction in municipal block funding. The status quo is being maintained. But I'm alarmed with the current trend of this government to lend the various municipalities funds and not budget for those funds in the normal routine course of each year's budget, as has been the trend in the past.

That pretty well sums it up, Mr. Speaker, for the benefits and the positive aspects other than that government will be maintained, the roads will be plowed, and schools may or may not continue to be operated, the health care system might be functional. But what we're seeing is the largest O&M budget in the history of the Yukon - all this when the economy has gone from a recession to a full-blown depression.

And the definition of the depression is outlined in any textbook, and one only has to see how many fiscal periods we have been going backward to qualify for that distinct position. Of all of the jurisdictions in Canada, the 13, we have gone backward the fastest of any of them, Mr. Speaker. That, in itself, is alarming.

So what do we have? We have this so-called first Liberal budget. Now, this first Liberal budget virtually follows the path of the preceding NDP budgets, and follows the same basic formula of having the government spend more and more money on itself while the population continues to decline, as Yukoners are forced to leave the Yukon to find jobs elsewhere.

The Yukon Party, prior to the budget being released, called upon the Liberal government to hold the line on O&M costs of government and increase the capital budget. They didn't listen; we didn't expect them to. They're all up there in their own little ivory towers, thinking they're doing a very good job. O&M spending by this government is up $35 million, and the reality of it is - contrary to what the Liberals have presented - capital spending will be down. What is being portrayed is the main estimates capital spending being up by some seven percent. We know what happened to the main estimates by how much has been deferred from last year, Mr. Speaker.

While that comparison bodes well for political mileage, until you ferret out the truth, Mr. Speaker, the reality one finds is quite to the contrary.

If you look at the capital projects being undertaken by the Liberals, virtually all of the major ones are just carry-overs from the previous NDP government. I don't even know why we needed a new government. We could have just taken the existing NDP platform, like the Liberals did, and carried through with it. This Liberal government is going to become known as the NDP Liberals or Liberal NDPs. It is being suggested that that's flattering, but it's not intended to be so.

If you look at the previous projects - the Mayo school. I am very hopeful that it will go ahead this year. It will probably come back to haunt this Liberal government in the form of a potential charge for bid shopping, given that there has been no basic change in the floor plan of the recently tendered documents. But so much for the political wisdom to cancel the Mayo school project. But let's wait and see what happens with respect to the Mayo school. I am very, very hopeful that an excuse will not be found this time to cancel that much needed project.

And then there is the other major capital project, the extended care facility. And that is just a continuation of a capital project started by the previous NDP government. Of course we listen to the Minister of Health expound on how it has been improved upon and enhanced. Well, so much for political spin and political rhetoric.

What we have is a government that is spending $33 million more, having the largest budget in Yukon's history of $535 million; and this budget isn't going to be putting Yukoners back to work, Mr. Speaker. There's not much optimism that can be derived from all this government spending, because the Liberals' economic policies are destroying development in the territory, if it hasn't already been destroyed and exited the Yukon.

If you look at the Liberals' position with respect to spending $3.4 million on mining, on the surface - to the layperson, to you and I, Mr. Speaker - that would appear to be a formidable increase and could provide much benefit to the mining industry. And on the face of it, it could very well occur that way, but the reality is quite something else. The reality is that the mining industry is very, very concerned with this government and their approach to the protected areas strategy. What we are seeing is a proposal to remove 40 percent of Yukon's land area from all development through the creation of 16 new parks. That's what we're seeing. That's what the mining industry is concerned with; that's what the mining industry is afraid of. They know it's going to happen. There's a committee that has been struck to look at it, and virtually everyone in the resource sector has seen how badly flawed and how one-sided the makeup of that committee is. They don't want any part of it.

Until that committee is brought back in a structured manner with equal representation from the resource sector and with equal representation from the environmental sector, we're not going to get anywhere with creating a level playing field and providing any certainty to the resource extraction area.

What we are doing is we are determining the course for the future of the Yukon with respect to resource extraction. It isn't just going to happen here any more; we're just going to be one big park, surrounded by armed guards. As I speak today, we have the mining recorders out in Regina, learning how to carry pistols. Canada Parks are going to be armed. We have this federal Liberal position of disarming all Canadians, but everyone in the resource area is going to be packing a great big nine-millimetre pistol on their hip.

It will be interesting in a few years' time, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we have that much-loathed Canadian institution, the Canadian Gestapo - more formally known as the federal Department of Fisheries - which seems to make their presence known, striding around with great big flak jackets on and pistols on their sides at any given opportunity. I wonder when the last occurrence was of a fish biting a fisheries officer here in the Yukon - to the extent that they need to carry and be armed to that extent, Mr. Speaker. But that's where we're heading.

We are creating a whole series of parks here in the Yukon, through various mechanisms - one being the protected areas strategy, not to mention land claims. We're creating another series of parks through land claims, not to mention the creation of more federal parks here in the Yukon.

In a few years' time, I can see the Government of the Yukon being the keeper of the gates and nothing else. That is going to be a sad day for Yukon, given that the Yukon was created as a distinct region of Canada because of the resource extraction industry.

Now, contrast what is happening in the Yukon to the Northwest Territories today, Mr. Speaker. The Northwest Territory brought down one of the largest budgets ever, at some $700-odd million. They have a surplus, for one of the first times ever, and it is as a consequence of the mining and oil and gas industry and the monies flowing to their respective coffers from the benefits of these major industries. And if you just look at the oil and gas industry, are the trucks coming through here going up to Eagle Plains? Yes, they are. But for the window of opportunity of some six weeks of work up in that area, Mr. Speaker, there are not a great deal of Yukoners going to work in the oil and gas industry in the Yukon here this year. If you start chatting with the helicopter companies, each helicopter company has about a two-week window of work, divided among three firms - that's it. If you start chatting with some of the other suppliers, about the only one that has a lock for the whole period and will be able to provide service for the entire amount of efforts that are being done in Eagle Plains is the lodge there.

And yes, there is a great deal of oil and gas. Yukon could actually be a net exporter of energy instead of a net importer of energy. It used to be said that of every dollar that changed hands in the Yukon, 25 cents went out of the Yukon to purchase energy. I don't believe that those statistics have altered significantly in the last little while. Probably they have changed somewhat because of the closure of a good deal of the mining activity that used to take place here. But there has been no encouragement to see any approach made to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs on behalf of any of the shutdown mines to see them come back into production. If you start looking at the mine in Elsa and the approach made by the Nacho Nyak Dun First Nation to the minister, they are probably miles ahead in any approach made by any group to put back into production a mine that is not functioning.

One of the other areas and one of the largest spending areas is the Department of Health and Social Services. If we start looking at that department and the increase that it is seeing, it is quite significant in itself. It is the largest department in the Government of Yukon, but what we are witnessing is the creation of a whole new department of government to deliver a service. We are going to be spending $2,360,000 setting up a new bureaucracy to deal with alcohol and drugs - $2,360,000.

When we look at the serious FAS/FAE problem, and we look at what we're spending there, there's really only $10,000 devoted to education and prevention. I guess, Mr. Speaker, what we have is the Liberal approach to governing - create a bigger government to serve fewer and fewer people.

Let us look at some of the priorities of this Liberal government, and the Liberal news release summed it up quite well. The priorities include $30 million on highway construction - really no change from last year; $4.9 million for recreational facilities in Dawson, Carmacks and Whitehorse. Well, most of that money - or a good part of that money - is going to be loaned to the respective communities to address their needs. In previous budgets, it has been a line item.

Then we go on to see $11.8 million on educational projects, including the Mayo school, which I spoke about earlier; $9 million for the completion o