Whitehorse, Yukon

Speaker:      I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling letters requested by the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin on February 26 concerning our support for ANWR.

They are as follows: June 2, 2000, a letter to Prime Minister Chrétien; June 2, 2000, a letter to Mr. Raymond Chrétien, then Ambassador of Canada to the United States; June 5, 2000, Trevor Harding, leader of the official opposition re: ANWR; June 28, 2000, a thank-you letter from Prime Minister Chrétien to Pat Duncan re: ANWR; December 13, 2000, a letter to Mr. Michael Kurgin, now Ambassador to the United States of America; January 19, 2001, a letter from Premier Pat Duncan to Mr. Wilf Regehr re: oil and gas development; January 26, 2001, a thank-you letter from Mack Hyslop, CPAWS Yukon, to Premier Duncan; January 28, 2001, a thank-you letter to Premier Duncan from Joe Tetlichi, Chair, Porcupine Caribou Management Board; January 30, 2001, a letter to Premier Pat Duncan from William Josie, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Deputy Chief; February 20, 2001, a letter to William Josie, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Deputy Chief from Premier Pat Duncan re: letter of support to Prime Minister Chrétien. And, Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling the Yukon Economic Outlook, 2001.

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

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) the Yukon Liberal Government has stated that restoring the Yukon's economy is one of its seven top priorities;

(2) the Yukon Liberal Government has also claimed to be actively pursuing the idea of a northern economic strategy with the federal government, with the support of the other territorial and western provincial governments;

(3) In spite of these claims, the Yukon's economy continues to deteriorate under this Liberal Government, and is expected to deteriorate even further as the national economy slows down;

(4) the Yukon's climate and relative isolation, combined with a small population base, present unique challenges in terms of public infrastructure, development of economic capacity, access to markets and other factors; and

(5) the federal government has a significant role to play in terms of supporting public infrastructure and encouraging economic development in Northern Canada, and;

THAT this House urges the Yukon Liberal Government to use its so-called special relationship with the federal government to impress upon the federal Minister of Northern Development and the Minister of Finance the need to make the negotiation and implementation of a Northern Economic Strategy, including economic development agreements with the Yukon, a matter of urgent priority.

Thank you.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) the Yukon Liberal Government is long on summits and consultations, but is short on economic performance;

(2) the Yukon Liberal Government promised in its election platform to hold an Annual Business Summit, to institute an annual intergovernmental consultation process on all issues related to First Nation self-government, and to hold an annual meeting that brings together representatives from all levels of government; and

(3) the Premier, in the 2001-02 budget speech, promised to sponsor yet another summit, a Forestry Summit, that will bring together Yukoners from across the territory to assist in developing forest industry policy; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Liberal Government to take immediate action to improve the Yukon's devastated economy, rather than just continuing to talk about Yukon's current economic difficulties.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) the role of the Worker Advocate was established to ensure that the clients of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board will have access to impartial help and representation in their dealings with the Board;

(2) under the terms of the Workers' Compensation Act, the Worker Advocate reports directly to the Minister of Justice as a way to ensure that the advocate can function in an independent manner, free of undue influence by the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board;

(3) while it should be possible, in the normal course of events, to settle disputes between the Board and a client without resorting to the courts, court action may occasionally be required; and

(4) clients who are in dispute with the Board may not have the financial means to engage legal counsel to represent them in court; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Government to amend the Workers' Compensation Act at the earliest opportunity to recognize the right of the Worker Advocate to support and represent clients of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board in court, as required.

Thank you.

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

THAT it is the opinion this House that:

(1) abandoned mine sites in various parts of the territory represent a threat to the health and safety of Yukon people and wildlife;

(2) even conservative estimates of the cost of cleaning up these sites range over $175 million;

(3) cleaning up the Faro and Clinton Creek sites alone could cost as much as $150 million;

(4) financial responsibility for cleaning up these sites rests solely with the federal government under whose authority the mines were allowed to go into production;

(5) in addition to abandoned mine sites, the federal government has a responsibility to clean up a number of abandoned military sites throughout the territory;

(6) furthermore, the federal government also has a responsibility to clean up other contaminated sites estimated to number in the hundreds, including the Marwell Tar Pits in Whitehorse;

(7) even after management and control of Yukon lands and resources is transferred to the Yukon from the federal government, the Government of Yukon will be in no financial position to assume this responsibility and should not be expected to do so, and;

THAT this House urges the federal Minister of Finance to act immediately to set aside the necessary funds to clean up these sites for the benefit of all Yukon people and the Yukon environment.

Speaker:      Are there any further notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide members of the Legislature with information on the upcoming visit of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales. His Royal Highness will be visiting the Yukon from April 28 to April 30, and this is the first visit by a member of the Royal Family in 19 years.

We are working with both the federal government and members of His Royal Highness' staff to make this visit a memorable one for all Yukoners.

I want everyone to know, Mr. Speaker, that the Palace has been extremely receptive to our suggested itinerary for His Royal Highness. As we planned the trip with Canadian Heritage and his Royal Highness' staff, we emphasized how important it was for the Prince to meet as many Yukoners as possible, and for him to experience the beauty of rural as well as urban Yukon. We also wanted him to recognize in some way two of the Yukon's greatest resources, our elders and our youth. Finally, we thought it was appropriate, during this International Year of the Volunteer, for His Royal Highness to recognize in some way the wonderful contribution our volunteers make to all our communities.

When Prince Charles arrives in Whitehorse on Saturday, April 28, he will attend a welcoming ceremony at the S.S. Klondike. The following day, he will address a youth conference in Whitehorse and meet with seniors.

Later that same day, Mr. Speaker, His Royal Highness will spend the afternoon in Mayo, unveiling a plaque for the new school, meeting members of the community and kicking off the Yukon-wide tour of the Yukon book of the volunteers.

Accompanied by the youth responsible for building the Mayo section of the Trans Canada Trail, His Royal Highness will walk the section of the trail that will bear his name. That evening, the Prince will attend a dinner and reception in his honour here in Whitehorse. As the date of the visit draws closer, there will be more information about the planned itinerary, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, I know that everyone in this House - indeed, all Yukoners - are looking forward to welcoming His Royal Highness and sharing with pride the unique beauty of our territory.

Mr. Fairclough:      This is not a ministerial statement. It's not announcing government policies. This was, rather, a public announcement of a visit that's taking place in the Yukon, which we heard about last week.

I have lots to say about Prince Charles coming to the Yukon and about the things that he's doing here and in Mayo, for example. But I do have to say that I know people appreciate someone of that stature coming to the Yukon and would love to meet him. And the fact that he loves the environment and loves the wildlife and loves the outdoors, to have him come and visit a place that still has a lot of the ecosystems intact is of great importance to us and to Yukoners.

Mayo has had Adrienne Clarkson visit the community, and they loved it. They displayed their arts for her, showed it off to the rest of the world, and they really appreciated that, and I'm sure this is going to happen again when Prince Charles visits the community of Mayo.

People will be out and wanting to shake his hand or meet him and also to show that this is a community that has a lot going for it, even though it's a small place. But I do think that the rest of the Yukon would love to have that same opportunity and it would have been nice to have the Prince visit more of our communities. That's something we need to think about in the future - to have him address more of the communities, because the people out there would like that type of activity in the Yukon.

The people in Mayo will certainly enjoy him. And I do appreciate the fact that he will be in one of the communities in my riding. I look forward to meeting him there, as I will be there on those dates, too.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I'll just respond briefly to what the leader of the official opposition has stated. The member is correct in that this is an announcement and a statement of what the government is doing, and it's important that we provide this information. As a courtesy, ministerial statements are provided to the members opposite. This was provided on Thursday; however, it was chosen not to deliver it on Thursday, and hence the reason for it today.

I appreciate the member opposite's support for the selection of Mayo as a community for the Prince to visit during his all-too-short stay in the Yukon. Although his visit is too short, we do welcome our first visit in 19 years from a member of the Royal Family.

I would like to assure the members opposite publicly that this government is very respectful of the place that members hold as elected members - as mayors, as First Nation leaders also hold - and certainly in any event, it is fully expected that members opposite will be invited and expected to attend. We look forward to seeing the members there, joining with us in welcoming His Royal Highness to the Yukon.

Speaker:      If there are no further statements by ministers, this then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fairclough:      By now, everyone knows that the federal Finance minister will be visiting the Yukon tomorrow. We're not entirely sure why. It certainly can't be because of a pre-budget tour, since he isn't planning to table a budget this spring. Perhaps the real reason is the one given by the Premier's principal secretary - that he's coming to help the local Liberals raise money to pay their campaign debts.

Will the Premier advise the House if it will be the Yukon Liberal Party or the Liberal Party of Canada that pays for this fundraising adventure?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, that's quite a question. We have a very clear fundraising policy about how funds are raised, at what point they're raised for the federal Yukon Liberal Association, and at what point they're raised for the Yukon Liberal Party here in the Yukon, and when those fundraising events are held here in Whitehorse or when they're held in communities. If the member would like to become a member of our party, I'd be happy to share that policy with him.

Mr. Fairclough:      Not a chance, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Premier doesn't expect the Yukon taxpayers or Canadian taxpayers to pick up the tab for this purely partisan political trip?

Last fall, the Premier came back from Anchorage ahead of schedule so she could spend more quality time in the Prime Minister's campaign bus. We're still waiting to find out how much extra it cost to leave behind her stand-in to deliver her speech.

Will the Premier now tell us exactly how much extra it cost to make those special arrangements, or whether or not the extra amount has been covered from this Liberal Party, or from Canada?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Oh, Mr. Speaker, I wish the member opposite would get the facts right. First of all, the Minister of Finance is travelling throughout the country, meeting with ministers of Finance. He has just met with my counterparts in Atlantic Canada. He met with the Minister of Finance in the Northwest Territories yesterday. He's meeting with myself, as Minister of Finance, tomorrow, and then he goes on to Nunavut. He's meeting with all three territorial Finance ministers, because we have a fiscal arrangement with the Government of Canada - a formula finance funding arrangement - and, as Minister of Finance, it's very important that I speak with the federal Minister of Finance.

Just because the member opposite doesn't think that's important, that's his choice. Certainly the rest of Yukoners do.

And, for the member opposite's information, he's travelling on ministerial business.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, we know that it is a fundraising trip that he is coming to the Yukon for. And, if that is the case, maybe the Premier should have a little word about this with the principal secretary, who said that this is for raising money, for local Liberals to raise money to pay their campaign debts. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that this is appropriate to ask taxpayers to pay for political travel; it's as simple as that.

The Premier was in Ottawa meeting with the Finance minister not long ago, and certainly she could have followed up with a telephone call or e-mail. Once again, will the Premier tell us how much of Mr. Martin's travel costs to raise money for this Liberal Party will be paid by the taxpayers, and how much will come from the party's coffers?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I don't get the member opposite's question. Because we work well with the federal Finance minister and our federal counterparts, we are somehow at fault for that. And because the Yukon Territory is being treated the same way that Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, the Maritime provinces, B.C. and Alberta - we are also warranting a visit from the Minister of Finance - does the member opposite have a problem with that? That astounds me, Mr. Speaker.

Of course I want to meet with the Minister of Finance on a number of very important issues, including the formula finance funding arrangement. The Minister of Finance was just in Atlantic Canada discussing these very issues. He has travelled throughout the country on formula issues, equalization issues, tobacco tax issues - all kinds of finance issues that are important to this territory. Why the member opposite would not want to welcome the Minister of Finance totally astounds me.

Question re:  First Nations, federal economic development funding

Mr. Fairclough:      We know that the Liberals will be doing a fundraiser. Do the taxpayers pick up the tab for that, Mr. Speaker? We know that is what's going to take place.

I have another question for the Premier about the federal Finance minister's visit. Expectations are running high in various First Nations that the minister plans to make a major announcement about economic development funding for Yukon First Nations.

Will the Premier advise the House if that is the public purpose of Mr. Martin's visit?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, the public purpose for the Minister of Finance to meet with his territorial counterpart, myself, as Minister of Finance, is to discuss the formula financing funding arrangements between Yukon and Ottawa. That is the purpose of his visit.

Other items on the agenda include such other issues as equalization cap, other federal finance issues like the Canada health and social transfer - issues that provincial premiers presented to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's commitment in that regard. It's also quite likely that the Minister of Finance will raise the issue of tobacco tax with me.

Also, the other point, of course, that the Finance minister is likely to raise with me, which I can't believe I nearly forgot to mention, is the tax cuts issue.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, I think that the Premier failed to mention that there is a dinner at $100 a plate that is taking place when Mr. Martin is here to raise funds for the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker. And that's the priority. She cannot hide that, Mr. Speaker. The Premier said that land claims, of course, is the issue, and the First Nations will certainly be wanting to look at what movements could take place with regard to the two outstanding issues that there are out there. One of those, of course, is the forgiveness of the negotiating loans. We know that the Premier has been speaking with the Finance minister. Does she expect an economic development package to take this item off the table?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I fully expect to discuss with the Finance minister, hon. Paul Martin, formula finance funding arrangements between the territorial government and the federal government. We discussed the formula when I met with the Finance minister in August. I also discussed section 87 issues with the Finance minister in August, and I will note to the member opposite to review the comments he has just made with those comments made by the Grand Chief this morning with respect to areas that are under Minister Nault's responsibility - that being the repayment of loans.

The other point we're going to discuss, Mr. Speaker, is tax cuts. Both our government and the federal Liberal government have delivered recently on substantial tax cuts to Yukoners. In fact, the combined impact of the tax cuts will increase the amount of disposable income Yukoners will have by over $10 million this year, and that's certain to be a subject of conversation, as well.

Mr. Fairclough:      Thanks to the NDP. The Liberals are following the tax cuts that the NDP brought in.

Mr. Speaker, why isn't this Liberal government raising the other issues that are important to Yukoners? Why isn't it doing that? It's a perfect opportunity to do that, and I'm sure that if there were such a package in place for First Nations in regard to an economic development package, it would be welcome money to the Yukon.

I'd also like to remind the Premier that she did raise expectations about a new northern economic development agreement that may be in the works and, so far, we haven't seen anything at all. Does the Premier expect the federal minister to bring some positive news on that front? Or will Yukoners still have to wait to see progress?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The member opposite is, I'm certain, aware of the fact, from his time as a Cabinet minister, that there are certain items of responsibility that ministers bring to Cabinet. The potential for a northern economic development partnership and funding comes through Minister Nault. It will not be taken to Cabinet by Minister Martin.

I can, and I will, of course, lobby Minister Martin for his support at the Cabinet table, but we have to get DIAND to take the document there in the first place. That has been the issue, and that's what I have been working on, and DIAND's - being the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development - work on this issue continues.

Question re:  Pioneer utility grant universality

Mr. Jenkins:      I see we're not going to get anything from the Premier on the issue of Mr. Martin's visit and what he's going to be saying and doing, in spite of the fact that the federal government is picking up the tab for him coming to the Yukon. But let's go after another issue that the Liberals are famous for.

My question is to the Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals' election platform states that Pat Duncan and the Yukon Liberals subscribe to the five fundamental principles of health care - universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and publicly administered health care - and are committed to supporting the health of all Yukoners.

On February 28 this year, the minister issued a statement in this House on the pioneer utility grant, in which he challenged one of these very fundamental principles by conducting a review of the grant to examine the issue of eligibility and universality. He went on to state that all governments in Canada are looking at universality. How can the minister reconcile this 180-degree reversal on a policy that the Liberal Government of Canada has always considered to be sacred and has threatened retaliation against any jurisdiction contemplating changing this fundamental principle?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Thank you for the question. I am not sure what the question is there, but it has something to do with universality. I don't think that we are questioning universality, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure where the Member for Klondike gets that view.

The spin that comes from the member opposite is always something different than reality. When we talk about how we in Canada are using our dollars for health care, that is a real issue. If that affects universality, it is in the total package. I don't know why the member opposite is picking up little bits here and there and trying to make a big issue out of it. This is a discussion that is taking place right across the nation.

Mr. Jenkins:      What we have here is the government of the day challenging one of the fundamental principles in the health care system, and it comes directly from the option paper presented by this minister's department.

The question to the minister is this: can the minister explain the amazing flip-flop, and advise the House what other universal health care programs the minister is considering applying a means test to?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      That question sounds like a trap, and I don't think I'll bite right now, Mr. Speaker.

The question of universality and then twisting in there the public utilities grant doesn't quite match up, because the public utilities grant is a Yukon program. It's not a federal program. So we can reflect on anything that takes place in the Yukon, we can look at it, we can evaluate it, and we can make recommendations for the future.

As far as the universality of the federal programs, we're not discussing those at this point in time. If the member opposite wants to discuss them, that's fine. We'll more than listen. The important issue here, Mr. Speaker, is that we need more dialogue about health care in Canada, and that's what the federal government and that's what my provincial and territorial counterparts are suggesting - that we need a lot more dialogue about health care and how we are going to deliver it in the future.

Mr. Jenkins:      What we don't need is more dialogue that manifests itself as a smokescreen so that this minister can hide behind the issue of not doing his job. Now, what is being proposed by this Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, is a means test.

Now, when is this minister going to stand up for the benefits that accrue to Yukoners? When is he going to support Yukoners rather than the Liberal Party of Canada? What we have is a government that is more interested in the federal Liberals, the Yukon Liberal Party, than the means and the well-being of Yukoners. Applying a means test to the pioneer utility grant is just one example. In what other areas is a means test contemplated by this government?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I wonder if the member opposite is starting another rumour about a means test? We have not mentioned a means test. If it's being mentioned, then obviously it's being taken completely out of context, as the member opposite is very famous for.

The important thing, Mr. Speaker, is the issue of health care. That's the real issue - the issue of having Yukoners talk about health care and how to better deliver it, how to be more efficient with it, and how to make sure that we have health care professionals in the future.

So, these are the issues. Where the member opposite is getting this dream - maybe it's something deep down in his own psyche, where the member opposite psychically wishes to go. That member, maybe, wishes to have a means test but, at this point in time, we're not even discussing a means test as a way of trying to solve our health care problems.

I'm not saying the issue hasn't been raised by a number of people, but it's not a direction that we've taken, so I'm not sure where the member opposite is going with that.

Question re:  Worker advocate for Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board

Mr. Keenan:      Today I have a question for the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board.

Now, it was just last Thursday that I made the minister aware that the board's lawyer had filed a motion in the Supreme Court that would limit the worker advocate's ability to represent injured workers in court.

The minister has now had a chance to be briefed on this situation and to look into this situation, and I hope he spoke with his honourable colleague, the Minister of Justice. I would like to ask the minister, at this time, if the minister feels, as I feel, that this motion will unfairly limit the independence of the worker advocate position?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I, again, Mr. Speaker, would suggest to the member opposite that it sounds like a smoke-and-mirrors approach here to try to make an issue out of an issue that's not there. We are fully behind what the workers' advocate office does. That, to my understanding, was the reason why it was set up - to ensure that we respond to those needs out there - and we continue to do that. If we have problems within it, then obviously we're willing to look at how we can ensure that efficiency takes place in all our agencies that help and support people.

Mr. Keenan:      In keeping with my friendly demeanour in the House and providing suggestions to the minister, I'll ignore the insults that the minister has thrown across the floor, like "smoke and mirrors", et cetera. They're very thinly veiled.

I would say that, obviously, the minister has not taken a chance over the last few days to get briefed or even have conversations with the Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, this is appalling, and it's dangerous for the people at the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board - the clients there.

The issue, Mr. Speaker, which is going to court today, is another one that I'll get to later, I guess. It's very frustrating.

On Thursday, I had the minister agree that the workers' advocate position to represent the workers in court should be enshrined in legislation. Members of the House heard that commitment, but people in Hansard obviously did not record it as such because the microphones were turned off at that point in time.

So, is the minister prepared to reiterate the commitment today so that the position of his government is clear? And it's not hiding behind smoke and mirrors; I just want the government's position.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, we're always open to suggestion, always open to changing and trying to adapt to help those people who need it most. The important part is that we need suggestions; we need recommendations that come from all sectors of our society in order to make these ideas come to reality.

The important part for me, Mr. Speaker, at this point, is that, if that's an area of concern, we're more than willing to look at it as a government, but for me to go out right at this moment to commit myself and the government to something that we really haven't discussed as a caucus would be rather presumptuous of me. So I would have to suggest that that's a deeper conversation for our government in total.

Mr. Keenan:      I just can't take that. He says that he is always open and now the minister wants to go out and talk about consulting. If the minister were doing his homework, as he keeps throwing in my face or in the Member for Klondike's face on this side of the House, we would not be having this conversation.

In court today, there was a motion filed and if that motion is approved today, it will mean immediate consequences - immediate, like starting right after tomorrow - to the role of the independent worker advocate. That's when it would start.

It would create a serious hardship for the workers who are out there and have disputes with the board or who have received positive rulings from the appeals tribunal. Many of these clients, as I said earlier, do not have the resources or the money to engage legal counsel. So, now I would like to ask the minister if he will look to immediately bringing forward a legislative amendment during this sitting, so that we will be able to clarify the ability of the worker advocate to represent clients in court. Will the minister do that without going out on a tour?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I am always interested in going out on tours, because it is important to listen and consult with the people who put us here.

The important part about legislating the worker advocate position in place - it wasn't our government that put it there in the first place, it was the government sitting across the floor. Obviously, if they would have consulted appropriately, it would have been done right and we wouldn't be in this dilemma, according to the member opposite. We are in this dilemma now, I think, mainly because the members opposite didn't do their homework and now they want us to quickly patch up something that they botched.

So, I think that if there is a problem and an issue that was created before our time, we are more than willing to see if we can repair it. That is all that we've been doing - repairing a lot of damage that has been done over the last three or four years. We are the people to do it, because we know what people need.

Thank you.

Question re:  Tantalus School

Mr. Fairclough:      Here we go again with the blame game from the Minister of Health. And they know better, more than Yukoners do.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. For the last 10 months in this House, we've been asking questions regarding the health and safety of our children in the schools, and there has been much debate about the Mayo school and the replacement of the Mayo school. Now, over the weekend, we've had the ceiling come down from water damage in the foyer of the Tantalus School in Carmacks. Is the minister aware of this, and what is he doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the government is always very concerned about the health, safety and welfare of our students, and we would be remiss if we weren't. With respect to the situation at the Tantalus School, the department is already on the job, looking after the repairs.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister is true to his words. The NDP, when in government, did a lot of consultation with regard to schools. We followed the direction of the chair of the school councils and the department and had no political interference with the capital projects that government was to do, and we followed them through, right to the Mayo school. Now, in our long-term plan, we've also had planning monies in place for this year's budget for a design of completion of the Tantalus School. Is the Minister of Education going to bring forward monies in this budget for the Tantalus School?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I might suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to get into budget debate, it might be appropriate that we do that when we are in debate on budget?

Mr. Fairclough:      Just what I thought: they don't have the answers. I don't believe the minister is aware of the situation at this school. Built in the 1950s and due for replacement, it went part of the way. The government spent all kinds of money in acquiring the property and getting ready to complete the school without disrupting classes in the old wing while this took place. Now, this is important to the community, and the minister says he does support projects like this and the health and safety of children.

Will the minister now go back to Cabinet and Management Board and bring forth dollars for planning a school in Carmacks - for the Tantalus School - and for the completion of that school?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      As the member opposite well knows, we are stretched to the max with respect to dollars, as the Premier has continually espoused in the budget. We do have an anticipated surplus at the end of the next fiscal year of $6 million.

Mr. Speaker, this government is very cognizant of the fact of the condition of our schools throughout, and had the previous governments been a little more responsible in their actions, they certainly would have addressed the needs long before this.

With respect to the Mayo school, of course, we'll be starting construction toward the end of this month. We have needs in grade realignments here in Whitehorse and will be accommodating that through adjustments to the Catholic schools in Whitehorse.

There are many needs and many demands that we're aware of. We'll always look after the safety of our children in the schools, and we'll be addressing the needs with respect to the Tantalus School.

Question re:  Film industry incentive program

Mr. Fentie:      My question today is for the Premier in her capacity as Minister of Economic Development.

Across this country, governments are actively pursuing, through incentives, film industries. In most cases, these investments and these incentives, provided to the film industry in this country, are proving to be a big boost to the economies of these respective jurisdictions.

Now, here in the Yukon, many, many people in this territory have worked very hard in creating a TV series. My question to the minister is this: is this minister prepared, based on her commitment to attract investment, to establish some sort of vehicle to provide incentives to the film industry, so that it, too, can become part of a very, very lucrative part of the economy of the Yukon, as it is in other jurisdictions?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:     Mr. Speaker, we are very interested in building a viable film industry in the Yukon, and we are willing to consider any proposal brought to us. However, there are a lot of unanswered questions about this proposal, and until we have answers to those questions, we are not prepared to commit taxpayers' money to the project at this point. As we said, the door is open.

Mr. Fentie:      My question was directed to the Minister of Economic Development. This is about creating jobs and creating economic development in this territory. I know the Premier is trying desperately to deflect the facts, in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the economic disaster that this Liberal government has led us into. In fact, the first 10 months of this Liberal government's mandate have been a train wreck.

Will this government now look at this seriously and provide the incentives to the film industry so that we, too, here in the Yukon, can reap the benefits of this ever-growing industry in this country? Will the Premier do that?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, today on the CBC radio, the president of the B.C. Film Commission said that governments should be very cautious about investing in projects like this. He said that they must first do their homework. That is what we're doing.

Mark DesRochers from the B.C. industry - a billion-dollar industry - said very clearly that, yes, television series can generate lots of money in the local economy, but he cautions that investors should do their homework.

The government is obviously going to have to do a great deal of due diligence on what the international distribution is, who the broadcaster is, and obviously what kind of investment is needed to throw money at this project to make it a reality before it comes to town.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are being supported by people who have far more knowledge and understanding of developing film and television than we'll ever have at this point, and that's what they're saying. So, Mr. Speaker, yes, we are doing our homework.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, the Film Commission that this government oversees has done the homework. This is, over five years, a $1.5-million investment. It equates to $300,000 a year. That's directly from the president of the Film Commission. They have been doing their homework. Now, we in the official opposition want to be constructive. We are in a desperate situation here economically, and we want to help.

So here is a constructive suggestion: let us, through an all-party process here in this Legislature, amend the budget. I would wager, Mr. Speaker, that we could find the money to provide the incentives for the film industry here in this territory and not impact or compromise any programs or delivery of services to the Yukon Territory.

Will the Minister of Finance answer this question? Will she entertain amending the budget to find the money to provide incentives for the film industry here in the Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, amendments to the budget are out of order from the opposition members, as constructive as they try and cloak them.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      A cute try. Thank you, Member for Faro. They're a cute try, but the Yukon economy is far more serious than the opposition's cute tactics, trying to grab a headline. This government is doing their homework. There's money in the film incentive program now. The acting Minister of Tourism has already stated that there are others knowledgeable in the industry who are recommending we examine this matter very, very carefully, and the member opposite should read the rest of the briefing note. It's not a $1.5-million investment by the government; it's $12.6 million. And what does the member opposite suggest we cut? The Whitehorse Correctional Centre, the Tantalus School, the Mayo school, any one of the other school projects that are on the list, or shall we put the entire $1.5 million in Project Yukon, of which the member is so fond?

The member opposite is very fond of complimenting us on our Project Yukon. Would the member have us put the entire Project Yukon budget in one potential portion of a project, for which the long-term investment required is $12.6 million?

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Chair:  We will now take a 15-minute recess.

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

Bill No. 4 - First Appropriation Act, 2001-02 - continued

Chair:  A point of order was raised by the hon. Minister of Education at the last meeting of Committee of the Whole during general debate on the government's appropriation measures, set out in Bill No. 4. The minister requested "a ruling from the Chair on whether or not questions can be asked both ways in this House in general debate." The Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes and the Member for Kluane provided input to assist the Chair in considering the point of order, for which the Chair thanks the members.

It is important to recall that the relatively informal proceedings in Committee that we call "debate" or "general debate" are situated within a formal context and set of rules. Debate does not occur within a vacuum; there must be a proposition or motion before the House or Committee for consideration. In most cases, the matter before the House or Committee is one sponsored by the executive and the Cabinet. It is a fundamental role of members of the House then to scrutinize the policies and proposals of the executive, and to hold the Cabinet accountable. And it is the role of members of the executive to respond to members' comments as they see fit.

In a circumstance where the matter before the House or Committee were, for example, a private member's public bill, sponsored by a member of the opposition, or by a backbench member of the government side, it would be appropriate for members, including members of the executive, to question the proponent of the legislation. That is not, however, the matter currently before the Committee. The Committee of the Whole is considering the government's appropriation measures, for which Cabinet members collectively and individually are answerable.

In reviewing the relevant precedents of this House, the Chair notes that the hon. minister previously raised the issue as to "whether I am able to ask questions of members opposite" on Thursday, June 29, 2000. The ruling of the Chair at that time, while recognizing that such questioning by Cabinet Ministers of members opposite had occurred, noted that it had not worked very well, and clearly discouraged the continuation of the practice.

I accept the wisdom of my previous ruling. I feel that it is conducive to the Standing Orders, and further request that those who propose a measure for consideration not spend the time of the House in asking direct questions to other members. In the course of debate, there will be opportunities and other means available for members to express their own positions while identifying and exploring the positions of their colleagues opposite.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I would just like to open general debate on the budget with a couple of responses to members opposite.

The interim leader of the official opposition has asked a question with regard to the decrease in grants-in-lieu, and we're having a written response prepared for the member opposite.

And the Member for Klondike had asked for a summary of the estimated private sector full-time equivalent impact of the 2001-02 capital main estimates by program, and I have a copy of that for the Member for Mayo-Tatchun and the Member for Klondike, which I'll just send over via page.

In light of the fact that the Finance minister is visiting the Yukon tomorrow, I will just provide the members opposite with a little bit of background information that might be useful to this afternoon's debate.

The members opposite will be aware that there are approximately $1.8 billion in additional equalization payments for some of our colleagues - those in Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. However, I must remind members that the Yukon does not receive equalization payments. We have a formula financing arrangement with Ottawa. The formula financing arrangement is the subject of discussion between Minister Martin, me, my colleague in the Northwest Territories and my colleague Mr. Ng in Nunavut. We've been working hard, discussing transfer issues with Ottawa and with other provinces for the last several months. Work is progressing on these issues. I have no prejudgement of any decisions by Minister Martin. These are issues that we're working on, and they are said in the overall Canadian context and northern context.

Our formula financing agreement is a key issue, and, as I said, when we last met with the Minister of Finance in August, I discussed the formula at that time, and I'll be following up on those discussions.

Another item we are likely to talk about is the tax cuts. Both our government and the federal Liberal government have delivered on substantial tax cuts, and I suspect we will be discussing those. As well, another issue that has come up is how some of the provinces are proceeding with their tax issues.

And I have been asked why I'm not raising land claims issues. I would just remind members that I do, as I always do when speaking with either a federal minister or anyone interested, review the land claim situation. The Grand Chief has stated it more eloquently than I this morning, making it clear that progress is being made at the land claims table, and none of us, in the Grand Chief's words, Mr. Chair, want to upset the apple cart. Negotiations seem to be going well. So I will certainly be providing Minister Martin with an update on that particular situation.

With regard to any other questions in general debate on our budget, I am certainly prepared to answer them. I would just confirm that the only outstanding issues right now that are left to answer are the grants-in-lieu for the leader of the official opposition, and of course that written response will be provided to the Member for Klondike. As well, the Member for Klondike asked for questions that were raised in the public meetings, and that information is also forthcoming. I do believe that is all of the outstanding questions.

Mr. Jenkins:      I would like to thank the Premier for outlining the hype surrounding the hon. Paul Martin's visit. He is probably one Canadian who is held in very high esteem by a lot of Canadians, but the bottom line is that his visit to the Yukon is going to be paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, and it is being used as a vehicle to raise money for the Liberal Party - the Liberal Party of Canada and the Yukon Liberal Party.

Now, the issues here that have to be addressed and are primarily in the federal Minister of Finance's domain are those surrounding land claims. The Premier has clearly identified the issues and clearly stated that they are not on the table for discussion.

What comes first? The interest of Yukoners or the interests of the Liberal Party? What is the Premier going to be dealing with, because it is most important that we resolve the Indian land claims here in Yukon. For that to be resolved, Mr. Chair, the two prime federal areas of responsibility that are delaying the moving ahead of the Indian land claims here in Yukon have to be dealt with. Really, the only person who can deal with the issues is, number one, the Prime Minister of Canada or, number two, the federal Minister of Finance. In both cases, we have had the Premier of the Yukon fly home from the visit to Alaska prematurely, so she could get on the bus with the Prime Minister of Canada, and probably just support his re-election bid and ensure that the Yukon was electing a Liberal, but let's deal with the job at hand.

The job at hand is representing the interests of Yukoners and seeing that the economy moves ahead.

Mr. Chair, the minister just tabled the Yukon economic outlook forecast for 2001, and just my initial overview of it is that I have never seen a more dismal portrayal of what is happening here in the Yukon. This really spells out what is happening. Nothing, other than that we're creating more and more government and spending more on ourselves, travelling all around. The Premier herself is off to Calgary this week once again, but the issues we have at home, to put Yukoners back to work, are not occurring - not happening. Why not?

Just look at the Yukon economic outlook. It starts off by saying virtually all regions of the world except Japan experienced economic growth of over three percent in 2000. Not the Yukon.

Yukon is one area of Canada that went backward. It goes on to spell out the certainty surrounding the Northwest Territories these days. Their budget, over there, is approaching $800 million, driven by the oil and gas, by the mining industry, and by a government that is in sync with the First Nations in that area, and they're all singing from the same page of the same song book - in fact, the same song. We don't have that here, Mr. Chair.

What we have are the environmentalists ruling the roost. There's no balance between the environmentalist movement and the resource sector movement. The government has created a very distinct imbalance. We've had an exodus of the mining community here in the Yukon. In fact, Mr. Chair, spending on exploration in the Yukon declined further in 2000, to a total of $8.8 million. That was down from $9.5 million in the previous year, 1999. We're heading an all-time low as far as mining exploration, which used to be the mainstay of the Yukon economy. But there isn't any incentive for Yukon to see a resurgence of the resource sector industry, specifically mining.

The outlook goes on that they're bringing in an exploration tax credit and have increased funding for the Yukon mining incentive program. I guess the reality of the day is being recognized, Mr. Chair, and it's not going to increase mining exploration and mine development, but it's going to help stem any further decreases. That's all it's going to do.

So much for what used to be the mainstay of the Yukon - the mining industry. And it even goes into the speculation that the Brewery Creek mine will be in operation this year. That's not the case; it's in a shutdown mode. Virtually all of their staff has been laid off. All of their homes in Dawson are for sale, Mr. Chair. That Brewery Creek mine is the last producing mine in the Yukon, and half the gold production of the Yukon is now gone.

It's interesting to see a mine that could come into production and could deal but needs some government help. Minto copper - if you look at all of the base metals, copper is on its way up; zinc is on its way down; lead is kind of holding its own. But copper, there's a high demand for it. What are we doing with the power line? Not running it by Minto, we're taking it from Mayo to Dawson. Interesting.

The question to the minister is how much is that connection between Mayo and Dawson, Mr. Chair, going to cost Yukoners and going to cost Yukoners in their electrical rates? That question hasn't been addressed, because the equation does not work. The equation does not support the construction of that connection. There isn't the demand.

In fact, the demand at both ends of the line is shrinking with the downturn in the population, Mr. Chair. And it doesn't even address the issue of what my community, Dawson City, is going to do to heat its water, because it used to rely on the surplus heat generated by the power generator units to heat the domestic hot water supply. How much is that going to cost the taxpayers of Dawson, either in the electrical rates or in the water rates?

That hasn't been factored in.

So, it is quite interesting as to where we are going in mining development. Oil and gas - the Northwest Territories is booming, Mr. Chair. The Yukon is sitting in the middle surrounded by tremendous oil and gas exploration in Alaska, the Northwest Territories, northern B.C., northern Alberta. And what are we doing? I guess the Premier is off to Calgary again next week to see if she can raise a little bit more hype. But to date, we really haven't seen anything. Forestry, other renewable resources - there's a downturn in virtually every area. Construction - it's kind of interesting.

Look at tourism. The number of visitors coming to the Yukon as measured by the total number of non-Yukon resident border crossings declined by seven percent in 2000 compared to the year before. Non-Yukon resident border crossings last year totalled approximately 262,000, down from 281,599. Our visitor industry has been steadily decreasing since the peak year of 1998. We are steadily decreasing in that area. Alaska is going the other way. Why? The Northwest Territories is going the other way. Why? Are the lights not on up in that Cabinet office, Mr. Chair? Or doesn't anyone see the big picture because they are too busy cutting ribbons, eating cake, and living off the hype? But we have a serious economic problem here in the Yukon that is not being addressed by this Premier, her Cabinet colleagues, her caucus, or by anyone in the Liberal caucus. I am sure that there has got to be a low-wattage light bulb over there somewhere, Mr. Chair. Hopefully that can flicker and recognize that we have a very serious problem.

The only area that is growing is government.

I'd urge all members of the Liberal caucus over there to take the time and read this Yukon economic outlook. Take a very serious read. Some of the statements are just about maintaining our status quo and holding our own. We're going to spend a whole bunch of money. We're going to throw a whole bunch more money at the initiatives, and all we're going to be doing is maintaining the status quo. It's serious.

Look at the film industry. We have an incentive today. There's a film company out there shopping, looking for a location - looking for a location where it can receive the maximum number of dollars from the respective government, and it's going to shop around. It's going to shop around to British Columbia, Alberta, Northwest Territories and the Yukon.

We could create another long-standing industry here in the film industry, but instead, the minister who has responsibilities for everything is doing her due diligence. I don't think that very much will come to fruition out of that initiative.

It used to be that we had a whole series of advertisements that were filmed here in the Yukon. Now that isn't even happening anymore. Start asking why. It's getting more and more difficult to obtain access into the pristine wilderness of Yukon. You can't even fly over them any more; can't even land a helicopter in them anymore.

The question that is asked again and again of this government - and they have failed to answer - is just how much of the Yukon is going to be protected in one form or another? We still haven't got an answer there. Currently, it looks like perhaps 40 or 50 percent. Why don't the Premier and her colleagues, Mr. Chair, establish a clear amount of land that will be withdrawn and turned into parks? Be definitive and provide some certainty.

No, leave it open to a wide degree of speculation as to what's going to happen next, where the next series of parks are going to be created. The only way to obtain some certainty through the process is to balance the equation with an equal representation from the resource sector and an equal amount of representation from the environmental sector in our dealings with these issues. Instead, the Minister of Renewable Resources has decided to push the ship ahead, the good ship SS Yukon Titanic, without representation from the resource sector.

So we're going to have a made-in-Yukon solution dictated by the environmental community, and the Yellowstone to Yukon initiative is coming more and more into focus than ever before, because there isn't a balance being created by this government, Mr. Chair.

The only area where we're seeing an increase is in our seniors population. We're all ageing rapidly under the Liberal guidance that is non-existent. It's interesting to note that, in the 45 to 59 age group, the population of the Yukon increased by 2.7 percent, while the number of Yukoners aged 60 and over increased by 6.6 percent.

The telling tale, though, is that out-migration appears to have been strongest among young, working-age individuals and families with young children. The population of those aged 25 to 39 dropped by 7.2 percent, while the number of children under 10 dropped by 6.4 percent. That in itself, Mr. Chair, tells you that the working-age population - those looking for opportunities - are going elsewhere.

The Premier's statement - her way is the highway - is very, very accurate. For our young, industrious workforce, her way is the highway - either the Dempster Highway to Inuvik to find employment, or the Alaska Highway south to find employment, because it's not here in the Yukon.

Mr. Chair, let's go back. I'm looking to the Premier when she opened her remarks, Mr. Chair. She went on at some length about the visit of the hon. Paul Martin. Could the minister just summarize in a succinct fashion the issues she's going to be addressing above and beyond what she has already elaborated on? Formula finance, tax cuts - we all know these issues are on the table for debate, but in order for the Yukon to move ahead, the Premier is going to have to get involved and send a very clear message to the Minister of Finance that the outstanding federal issues surrounding Indian land claims here in the Yukon are going to have to be dealt with.

Now, will the Premier of the Yukon make a commitment to stand up for Yukoners and move that initiative ahead with the Minister of Finance, rather than just dealing with the Liberal initiatives, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, of course. As I said in my opening remarks, the issues around land claims are, first and foremost, economic issues in providing certainty to everyone, and they are key issues that have dogged Yukoners for 30-plus years. I said in my opening remarks that - as I just finished briefing the media - yes, of course, the current land claims situation and discussion is something that I would raise with Minister Martin. I also made it very clear in my opening remarks that the Grand Chief made it clear this morning in his interview on the subject - that progress is being made at the land claims table, and that none of us, in the Grand Chief's words, want to upset that apple cart because negotiations seem to be going well. Those are the Grand Chief's words. And as the Grand Chief is the head of the Council of Yukon First Nations - and there are three parties at the table - I am, of course, interested in his perspective on that as well.

I am just waiting for the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes to finish advising the Member for Klondike on the role of the Grand Chief.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, if I may conclude, Mr. Chair. The member opposite asked me the question of what I was going to do to raise the number one issue of the settlement of land claims with the Minister of Finance. I already indicated the answer to the member opposite; however, the Member for Klondike chose to use his time to decry, deride and personally insult both me and members of the government with regard to not only the work that we are doing in terms of Yukon's economy, but in the work that we are doing in terms of managing the territory's finances.

The member opposite failed to point out that with respect to our neighbours to the east - the Government of the Northwest Territories - the real deficit in their budget, which is an increase to their debt, will be about $55 million plus this year.

The member opposite noticeably also omitted to mention the fact, since he follows the Northwest Territories so closely, that they have shelved their hotel tax because they couldn't get support of all the members. Amazing. And the Northwest Territories is doing so well, according to the members opposite.

I have previously, in my recent discussions with the media, lauded all the previous governments, regardless of their political stripe, in terms of managing the territory's finances to the point where we're not dealing with the debt law, as Premier Kakfwi refers to it, as a government.

The member opposite wants to talk about the economic outlook. You bet, let's talk about it, Mr. Chair. Let's talk about what this document says and what this government has been doing in 10 months in office. If I thought for one second that the member opposite was going to listen, I'd be happy to announce it.

Mr. Jenkins:      I don't know if I should be thanking the Premier for that overview and those non-answers, Mr. Chair, but the issue before us today is how to get the Yukon back and have some hope and optimism.

The Premier went on about the Northwest Territories having a deficit. Yes, there is an accumulated deficit, but the Northwest Territories has something that hasn't existed in the Yukon for the past few years, Mr. Chair, and that's hope and optimism for the future.

We have the same mineral potential as our neighbours to the east and west, and same oil and gas potential as our neighbours to the east and west. Although on our northern boundary, because of this Liberal government's position and this Liberal government's inability to deal with the matter of offshore boundaries, the benefits of any oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort Sea off the Yukon's northern coast will probably accrue to the Northwest Territories. That is, if Alaska doesn't get the boundaries changed and a determination is made that our northern offshore boundary between the United States and Canada does not conform to how Canada thinks it should.

These are issues that I would encourage the Premier to move on and do something about. Start thinking in terms of the benefits that will accrue to Yukoners. Don't just focus on the benefits that accrue to the federal Liberal Party and the Yukon Liberal Party, Mr. Chair. That's all we're seeing.

Now, other areas of Canada are enjoying booming times, population growths and an influx of individuals because of the good economic times they're enjoying. We're not in that same boat. On the contrary - Yukon has gone backward this last 10 months, and continues to go backward. That's the truth.

While the Premier was standing on her feet, waiting for my colleague, the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, to make a few pointers, I would encourage the Premier to perhaps sit down with the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes. He could probably give her a very clear, concise briefing as to the role of the Grand Chief and the role of the respective First Nations here in the Yukon in the land claim negotiation process.

It's obvious from the information that the minister has provided to the House that she's either not attending land claims briefings provided by her own officials, or she's not listening while she's attending. Otherwise, she'd know that the Asi Keyi Park was coming into existence, but she either didn't attend the briefing or didn't listen when she was attending the briefing, or probably didn't even have the briefing, Mr. Chair.

So now if I could encourage the Premier to spend a few minutes with the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, he sums up the respective roles very, very succinctly and very quickly. In fact, he did it in a very brief conversation with me, and the Premier could probably have a very good understanding of the respective roles of all the parties to the land claims negotiations process.

Mr. Chair, the Premier's hype surrounding Paul Martin's visit - could the Premier confirm that his trip to the Yukon is being paid for by Canada in total?

I thought the Premier would jump at the chance to say that the Yukon government isn't putting any money forward other than the time and efforts of her officials to attend the meetings with the federal Minister of Finance, but I don't know why the Premier is so reticent to establish who is responsible for what costs associated with the hon. Paul Martin's visit. We do know that a number of Yukoners will be paying $100 for the opportunity to, again, do what the Liberals enjoy doing - eating cake and cutting ribbons, even when there isn't any opportunity.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, to turn sod was suggested, but that's very, very difficult, Mr. Chair, in that most of the sod here in the Yukon is frozen, no matter what form the sods are in.

Mr. Chair, let's look at some of the other areas of the economic forecast. Can the minister look in her little crystal ball and tell us when things are going to turn around? The only area in which there's some optimism and some hope emanating from her government is the potential for an Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline, which may or may not come down the Alaska Highway.

Now, when are we going to be enjoying the benefits of the oil and gas industry and the mining industry such as Alaska and the Northwest Territories are currently enjoying? When are we going to get on track with the rest of Canada? Does the Premier, as minister responsible for Economic Development and Finance, have any idea as to when things are going to turn around in Yukon, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the best description for the economic outlook that was tabled today and a frequent word used in the economic outlook is the word "modest". The member opposite, I realize, wants to put his own political interpretation on it and wants this debate to be personal. He wants me to respond to all of the garbage that has been flung across the floor of the House.

I'd like to respond, speaking factually, about what the economic outlook says and what our government is working on in the Economic Development department alone, bearing in mind that we're not in the Department of Economic Development's debate. The Minister for Tourism can speak at greater length about what the Department of Tourism has responsibility for in terms of what they are doing.

First of all, despite the gloom and doom, which used to be the former minister's favourite expression, being put forward by the members opposite, there are some short-term challenges clearly identified in the outlook. It also says that, overall, the Yukon economy has a bright future, and that's a future we believe in as a party and it is why Yukoners believed in us.

We said we would rebuild the economy and we will. It's going to take more than 10 months and our first economic outlook report to have results, Mr. Chair. Even to the Member for Klondike, that ought to be obvious.

Among the highlights of the report, it says that unemployment is down from a high of 17 percent during the NDP's reign to an average of 11.5 last year, and that the unemployment rate is expected to decline further this year to 10.5 percent. This 10.5 percent is still too high, but in 10 short months at least it's showing a continued decline.

Our budget will help reduce unemployment. I have provided the member opposite with information on private sector jobs within this budget. The number of Yukoners with jobs increased last year, after years and years of decline under the NDP.

And I can't help but note that it wouldn't matter who was over here. The Member for Klondike would be standing there pontificating, saying that just because he speaks loudly and just because he reads it into the camera, it therefore must be so, regardless of how he has proven time after time after time after time that instances and accurate information dictate otherwise. He believes that because he says it, it must be so. Well, that simply is not the case. I hate to break it to the Member for Klondike, but that is not the case. He is not right. He is not right about the economic -

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Chair:  Mr. Keenan on a point of order.

Mr. Keenan:      If you are listening to the language of the Premier, and the Premier is speaking about truth and then throwing it back in the face of the member opposite, clearly the member is obviously saying that the Member for Klondike is not being truthful. I would like a clarification on that. That is definitely the way I interpret it.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, on the point of order, I specifically used the word "accurate" and the information that was presented by the Member for Klondike as not accurate.

Mr. Jenkins:      Just because the Premier can't handle the budget and can't handle constructive criticism, we are hearing all of this diatribe. There is no point of order.

Chair's ruling

Chair:  In this case I will have to agree with Mr. Jenkins. There is no point of order. This is a dispute between members.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if we want to talk about not being able to handle it, it's not this government that refers to members opposite with respect to wattage, Mr. Chair.

Again, the total value with regard to the value of building construction, a key economic indicator - construction rose by 13 percent last year, and a further 12-percent increase is expected this year. All of those are positive economic signs that are also outlined in the economic outlook. Modest, I agree. I would like them to be brighter. In 10 short months, it is not bad.

I mentioned to the member opposite that, last week, Statistics Canada reported that Yukon is expected to experience the second highest percentage growth in capital spending in all of Canada in 2001.

The economic forecast also says that the improvements this Liberal government has made to the exploration tax credit, and increased funding for the mining incentive program, are expected to stem any further decrease in spending on mineral exploration. It was going straight downhill under the NDP, and it takes time to not only stop that, but turn it around, and we have stemmed any further decrease.

Unlike the phantom tax cuts proposed by the NDP, real tax cuts by the Liberal government and, yes, the Liberal government in Ottawa, are expected to stimulate the economy by over $10 million this year. That's $10 million directly into our economy, Mr. Chair.

The tourism industry is expected to experience modest growth this year and, Mr. Chair, I differ from the member opposite on his version of the potential of the Mayo-Dawson line. I would disagree with him many times over. However, if the Member for Klondike continues his opposition to jobs, I'm sure his constituents will take note of it.

The economic outlook talks about the value of the fur harvest by trappers increasing 33 percent, and sales are expected to be similar this year. Now, the member opposite might not think that's important, but we, on this side, do, particularly the Member for Laberge. The report also recognizes that the outlook for Yukon's oil and gas industry is especially bright, and this is not all about simply a pipeline project. We are seeing the real visible results of work, with 60 people working in Eagle Plains. Maybe the member opposite doesn't want to see it; the rest of Yukoners do.

Anderson is going to spend more than $20 million over the next six years on oil and gas exploration. That work is now underway. That's in the Yukon; that's here; that's with Yukoners, Mr. Chair. We're doing our second auction of the rights to explore for oil and gas around Eagle Plains. Bids close on March 14.

The member loves to suggest that we sit in our offices and do absolutely nothing; that we simply show up, don't even turn on the lights, sometimes. That's what the member opposite has suggested, Mr. Chair. Well, number one, we're either here or we're out promoting Yukon. We're either in this building, or we're on the streets of Whitehorse, or we're in Yukon communities, working with Yukoners to rebuild our economy and to accomplish our other objectives.

The expenditures on the pipeline study - some of that $75 million is going to be spent here in the Yukon and is being spent with Yukon companies. A decision on the Alaska Highway pipeline project is expected later this year. And the member might think that that means absolutely nothing - doesn't support it. Well, that's not what Yukoners are telling us. We are not going to rebuild the Yukon economy overnight, but we are going to rebuild it. We are making progress. And we are working on all of the issues related to Yukon and our economic situation. It's not simply oil and gas, nor is it simply tourism, nor is it simply the mining industry, nor is it simply the forest industry. We on this side, regardless of the opinions of the members opposite, are capable of multi-tasking.

Mr. Jenkins:      If the Premier is capable of multi-tasking, I guess the only way to substantiate that claim is to prove it and show us. They're certainly not getting the message through.

Could the minister clearly spell out how much land in the Yukon is going to be turned into park? What is the total amount - as a percentage of the total land mass of the Yukon - that is being looked at for parks? What percentage of the total land mass? This is a pertinent question. It's relevant to the whole economic development debate, because it will bring some certainty back to the resource sector. Currently, that doesn't exist. It was destroyed initially by the NDP, and the current Liberals took up the challenge, faced it head on and continued with the same programs to further erode and destroy the resource sector's confidence in Yukon to have a definite position as far as the amount of land that was going to be turned into parks.

Does the Liberal government even have a position on this very important issue? How much land is going to be turned into park?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the member opposite is approaching the question of this government's progress on the protected areas strategy from a backwards angle and he is, I believe, misinterpreting the Brundtland Commission, which I would urge him to go back and read. I have consistently stated in this House that the Yukon protected areas strategy was not about percentages, as have previous governments and as has most of industry. They have not approached the question in that manner.

If the member opposite wishes to have an update on our government's progress with regard to dealing with the protected areas strategy - and I must emphasize, Mr. Chair, that we often use the term "fixing" the protected areas strategy. I want to emphasize that that is no reflection at all on the public servants or the volunteer members of the community who worked so hard on the protected areas strategy. This is about how government takes a strategy and puts it in place. It's all about how Yukoners get together and decide what areas we protect and what areas we develop and what areas are, in the future, doing what they're going to do. That's what the protected areas strategy is all about. It's about Yukoners making decisions so that we won't have another Windy Craggy. We have Yukoners making the decisions. That's what it's about, and that's what Yukoners, door to door, asked us to do.

The protected areas strategy is something that this government is working very hard on with industry, with environmentalists, and with Yukoners, who want to see the strategy that was worked out by that 18-member committee instituted by the Member for Mayo-Tatchun. They want to see it work, and that's what we're doing.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, I would like to thank the Premier for her overview of an issue that she doesn't appear to even understand.

First and foremost, Windy Craggy is located in British Columbia; it's not located in the Yukon. So our protected areas strategy initiative here applied to Yukon's potential mines and Yukon's potential resource extraction industries. We are not dealing with British Columbia, although, for the longest time, it used to be quite advantageous for Yukon when British Columbia elected an NDP government, because all of the mining was scared out of British Columbia and came to the Yukon and did all of their exploration and mining activities up here. But that changed quickly with the coming to power of an NDP government in the Yukon, in that mining didn't have any other place to go but elsewhere. They are not here in the Yukon, Mr. Chair.

So the Premier's rebuttal to what was a very specific question with regard to economic development and with regard to this budget, to provide some certainty to the resource sector for the future - she has failed miserably to answer that question. And I would suggest that she either can't answer the question or the Liberals do not have a position on it yet, as to what percentage of the total land here in the Yukon they deem appropriate to put into parkland. I don't know if they are going to study it for the next 10 years. They will probably only be in power for the next 30 months. I am sure they are going to go the way of any other government that hasn't honoured their election commitments - turfed out.

But the issue for the resource sector is to provide certainty around access to land and land tenure. That currently doesn't exist under this Liberal regime, Mr. Chair, and there doesn't appear to be any movement on the part of this Liberal regime to clearly outline how much of the Yukon will be turned into parks and eventually where they will be. Until that process has been gone through, the resource sector is not going to spend very much time up here because they do not know whether or not the Premier is going to suggest that we expropriate the mining claims in Tombstone or find some money for the Fishing Branch mining claims or the mining claims over in Asi Keyi Park. There are all sorts of examples where this Liberal regime in opposition said one thing, suggested that there would be another way to proceed, and have not provided that certainty to the mining community, as well as the balance of the resource sector industry.

It's coming home to roost. A decision has to be made, and it has to be made in that caucus, Mr. Chair. I would be very hopeful that the Premier is equal to that challenge to make that decision and clearly enunciate that decision, but what we see is both the Premier and the Minister of Renewable Resources waffling all around the question, failing to answer the question.

Let's try once more, Mr. Chair, for the record. How much of the Yukon will be turned into parks? Does the Liberal government have a position? Is it 20, 30, 40 or 50 percent of the total land of the Yukon? What is the percentage?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      A definitive answer on that issue is nigh impossible to determine. I'm sure that the members opposite who established the protected areas knew that fully well. Unfortunately, the mistrust and distrust of the mining sector of industry, as a result of the process to establish goal 1 protected areas, is usurping, or shortening, significantly the amount of time it requires to administer the protected areas strategy into a goal 1 area.

What we have done - the commitment that we have made to both industry and to the mining sector is that we will clearly indicate areas of interest on those 16 remaining ecoregions within the territory that warrant protection, as is the purpose of the protected areas strategy.

Just reading through Hansard, the minister of the day, in the fall of 1999, clearly indicated that, even though they were advised that the implementation process had to be respected and followed, and that there had to be clear lines of communication with all stakeholders, that wasn't done.

They admitted that right in Hansard, Mr. Chair. That's fine. I don't have the quote with me right here, but it wouldn't take very much for me to get it.

So, there is distrust as a result of that. Consultation didn't happen fully, as it should have and as was indicated in the plan. So what we are doing is reviewing that process and ensuring that that kind of political interference can't happen again - won't happen again. The Premier and I are working hand in hand in this process. We are indicating a willingness for Renewable Resources and Economic Development to move forward and we will be indicating areas of interest, so that it does create certainty for the mining sector and for industry in the territory. That's what they asked for; that's what they wanted.

Also in the review of Hansard, Mr. Chair, was that the protected areas strategy - the document itself - was endorsed by all parties in this House. The Member for Klondike continually decries the need for the protected areas strategy, and the leader of the party of the day had indicated full support and signed on to it. But there were conditions of support, in that the process had to be followed. It was critical; it was sensitive.

The members of the public advisory committee worked hard and were committed, over an almost two-year period on a voluntary basis, to the establishment of this document, which has been touted to the credit of the members opposite as one of the best in the country. If it had only been followed, though, Mr. Chair, it would have saved a lot of grief in conducting another review - another establishment of credibility and confidence in government. That's what we're doing, Mr. Chair.

It is hoped that, in the April meetings of the advisory committee, we will have industry and the mining sector back in there, willing to participate and follow through on the commitments to recognize the value of their input and recognize the consultation process. And we will do that; we are committed to that, because this government does what it says it will do.

Mr. Jenkins:      Just to set the record straight, Mr. Chair, the Yukon Party signed on to the protected areas strategy when the concept of multiple use was on the table. Now we don't even know where that is. And there was a concept that was moving forward as to how much land was going to be looked at under the Yukon protected areas strategy. There is a number that is accepted. It was 12 percent. In fact, when the Province of Ontario clearly spelled out that they were going to protect 12 percent of that province's area, they were patted on the back and applauded by all of the environmental organizations. Currently, in the Yukon, Mr. Chair, we're over 15 percent in parks and protected areas.

What is wrong with establishing a goal as to how much of the land of Yukon we are going to enshrine in parks? Why can't the government of the day come out with a definite number? We're already at 15-point-something percent. I guess the growth industry, Mr. Chair, is going to be the keeper of the gates around all these parks. Someone over in this Liberal government is envisioning creating a whole police force of conservation people to go out and patrol the park boundaries. I can't see any other area where we're going to experience growth until we deal with the Yukon protected areas strategy and the amount of land we are going to set aside for parks, especially when we appear to be abandoning the concept of multiple use.

One only has to look at the current program that this government is moving forward. I'm sure the Premier agrees with me that a lot of the uncertainty from the mining, forestry, and oil and gas industries surrounds the uncertainty of land tenure and land access, and even if they currently have claims in good standing - mining claims - there is nothing to preclude the government from stepping in and creating a park over those claims.

The advantage to the mining industry just doesn't exist. Why even come to the Yukon? We only have to look at the economic forecast just tabled in the House today that this government sat on for weeks, because it's such a dismal example of how they're managing the economy in the past 10 months. Mining exploration is at an all-time low, at $8.8 million, down from $9.5 million in 1999.

Will somebody please switch on the lights over there so that these people can read their own economic forecast, Mr. Chair, and come to the realization that mining and all the resource sectors are abandoning the Yukon? They're abandoning the Yukon, Mr. Chair, and they're doing so, to a large degree, because of the uncertainty surrounding land tenure and access to land. Doesn't this government realize that, until they come up with an amount of land that is going to be turned into parks and allow the mining industry to proceed, we're not going to attract a tremendous amount of investment opportunity back to the Yukon?

How many more mining companies are going to have their claims alienated here in the Yukon? That is out there, subject to a wide degree of speculation. What happened to the multiple use concept of the protected areas strategy? And once again to the Premier, how much of the land in the Yukon is going to be protected?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Once again to the member opposite, the member opposite is approaching this question in a manner that is not the manner that Yukoners recommended it be approached, including industry. The YPAS Public Advisory Committee recommended an approach to the protected areas strategy, and it was not an artificial number approach.

The government of the day agreed with that and this government agrees with that. The Member for Riverdale North is advising me that however much the Member for Klondike chooses to talk otherwise, Hansard indicates that the previous, previous government - several times removed - also supported that approach.

The point that the member is also making with regard to the mining industry - I heard the words, "I am sure the Premier would agree with me." And, Mr. Chair, I must indicate that, no, the Premier does not agree with the Member for Klondike. For example, land tenure has nothing to do with the problems that the placer mining industry is currently facing with regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the placer mining review. That is an issue that our government is working on.

Land tenure doesn't have anything to do with working with some of the other proponents of mining projects, such as the Minto property, the United Keno Hill property, or any of several other properties in the Yukon. The land tenure has everything to do with exploration and the ability to explore the Yukon. That is what we are working on, as well as all of these other issues.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, we're not going to get anywhere, Mr. Chair, in that area. The minister obviously doesn't have a position other than to waffle and not be definitive regarding the amount of land here in the Yukon that we're going to ultimately protect.

Well, can we have some sort of a timeline on when this process is going to be completed and we're going to have some certainty? Is that even in the equation or on the horizon, or is it so far down the pipeline that we'll have to wait for the arrival of the Alaska Highway pipeline before we see this come to fruition? There are, according to the Premier and according to the Minister of Renewable Resources, problems surrounding this process. Okay, the first step is, if that has been identified as their areas of concern, fix the process and move forward. What's the timeline? When can we see some certainty surrounding this initiative? Is it a year or two years, or is there going to be another issue that drives the next territorial election? What is it?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Just as my colleague, the Minister of Health and Social Services, continually reminds the opposition that they are not doing their homework - the Member for Klondike is the same. We have said, most recently leading up to the workshop for the advisory committee and at the committee, that we are committed to getting this process done within two years, that we will indicate areas of interest on the 16 ecoregions in two years and get on with it, as well as bring forward legislation this coming fall to entrench the protected areas strategy in some shape or form.

Mr. Jenkins:      Two years. We have some timelines now, Mr. Chair. That's great.

I have an additional question to that initial response. Has the clock started? Do we have the clock plugged in on this initiative yet?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, pretty much. The clock has started. As soon as we have the recommendations that come forward from the advisory group and we have it worked into the implementation aspect where it's goal 1, then the clock is already - we are committed to that. We said that we would, Mr. Chair, and we are.

Just for the member opposite's clarification, the former leader of his party, Mr. Ostashek, made the statement, "We believe in the protected areas strategy or we would not have signed it. We believe it's possible to have protected spaces and a system of parks without prejudicing economic development opportunities and the mining industry in Yukon." And, Mr. Chair, that is exactly where we are going.

Mr. Jenkins:      When Mr. Ostashek signed on to that agreement - and our party still supports it. But what it was originally envisioned as being - multiple use - and what we have today are like night and day, Mr. Chair, and therein lies the problem. I can't even get the minister to commit to when the clock starts running on this initiative. We're told two years, but there seems to be a whole bunch of caveats at the front of this.

Now, when will the two-year clock start running on this initiative? Has it started? Will it be started soon? What are we waiting for? We're told that we're probably waiting for this, that or the other thing. Just when is it going to start?

Do we have something definitive, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      April 30 this year.

Mr. Jenkins:      So, April 30 of this year, the clock starts. Two years hence, we'll have some finality to the Yukon protected areas strategy. Is that the message that the minister and the Premier are giving to this House?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The Minister of Renewable Resources just outlined this for the member opposite in a far kinder way than I would like to. However, I will restate my colleague's comments.

There's information from the advisory committee coming back to Cabinet, and advice. A two-year clock on identification of 16 areas starts April 30. Legislation on protected areas strategy to provide the kind of guarantee that processes would be followed is expected this fall.

So, we're going to keep talking about the protected areas strategy for some time to come. That's the bottom line the member wants to know.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, I guess, given the amount of people who are missing from the advisory group, I don't know who's going to be chatting about it. There's more and more of the resource sector leaving this group all the time. The government of the day is going to have to attract them back.

Will there be a balance between the resource sector and the environmental sector on this protected areas strategy review? Now, that's a key question to this initiative, given that there currently isn't a balance. Currently, the resource sector has walked away, because they were overwhelmed by the number of individuals from the environmental sector.

Why is there not a balance in this working group - an equal number from the resource sector and an equal number from the environmental sector? It seems, more often than not, that the minister's department represents the environmental sector. It doesn't appear that this government has struck a balance between the resource sector and the environmental sector. One would be of the opinion that they should equally represent all sectors. That doesn't appear to be what we're seeing.

Why can't we have equal representation from the resource sector and from the environmental sector?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, since this government was elected and has begun work on this issue, there has been equal representation.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, currently, there's no representation from the resource sector. When's that going to change?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      That is an incorrect statement. We did have representation from other industry. Oil and gas representatives, the planning advisory board, the Outfitters Association, the Tourism Industry Association, and the wilderness guides were at the workshop, Mr. Chair. We had very equal representation there. It was unfortunate that some members did remove themselves, but even after that there was probably more balanced representation than there ever was before.

Mr. Jenkins:      I'll review Hansard to see what the minister was including, Mr. Chair, in the resource sector, but I find some of his outline of the resource sector to be quite abnormal, given that they're more attracted and more interested in the environmental sector and protecting the wilderness, and not interested in seeing mining, forestry, or oil and gas take place. They want to maintain the pristine wilderness and create a park. There seems to be considerably more balance of that type of individual on this committee makeup than ever before, and the resource industries - oil and gas, mining and forestry - are not equally represented.

That's a major concern. It's a major concern of industry, but, given the Minister of Renewable Resources' definition of what constitutes the resource sector, it's going to be hard for the resource extraction industry to have any voice on these types of committees and their makeup. Why can't the resource extraction industries be equally represented on these committees to the environmental side of the equation?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, they can. The member obviously did not hear my colleague's response. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Mining Advisory Board - the focus of those two individuals is not about pristine wilderness as the member opposite said.

The member opposite also is not hearing the words that we are hearing from industry that, subsequent even to their leaving the committee at that particular workshop, the point was reinforced that our ears, unlike the ears of previous governments, are open. Does the member have a question on the budget? Because if we are going to debate the protected areas strategy all afternoon, we can move into the Department of Renewable Resources fairly quickly, if that is the member opposite's wish. If the member has a question on general debate in the budget, I would be happy to answer it.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, we are in general debate on the budget, and we will be on it for a few more days, given the tone, tenure and type of answers that we are receiving from the Premier. It is a sad day for Yukon when we can't answer a question in a forthright manner. We have to bounce all over the wall and hide behind other areas.

Let's look at the issue surrounding access roads into southeast Yukon. This was an area that I attempted to explore last Thursday with the minister.

We budgeted a specific amount to have a look at it. Now, it would appear that this is an initiative that the Kaska are in support of. Virtually all of the interest groups in the Watson Lake area appear to be reasonably in support of an access road into southeast Yukon. Now, just what is envisioned in this expenditure? Is it just going to be spent running around consulting, or are we actually going to do some planning for this road, as to where it could go and what it would take to construct? Or is it just going to be an exercise in spreading political goodwill and patting the Liberal Party on the back for listening?

What is it going to be? Is it a sincere effort to address the needs for a road to resources in southeast Yukon? I mean, you can recall Diefenbaker when he built the road to resources up the Dempster Highway. All it is today is a road to economic activity in another jurisdiction - the Northwest Territories. Or you might want to call it a road to a whole series of parks in the Canadian part of the Yukon.

Be that as it may, we are presented, Mr. Chair, with another opportunity to construct a road into an area of Yukon that is currently being accessed from British Columbia, and why can't we do something from the Yukon side? What is the game plan, other than just a study? Or does the minister have any overview of this area?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to provide the Member for Klondike with some forthright information on that.

First of all, I'm sure the member does not want to leave stand his reference to the Kaska First Nation as an interest group. I'm sure, when he gets to his feet, that he'd like to correct that statement.

With regard to any access roads in southeast Yukon, the discussions at the community level were on a number of issues. A number of potentials and ideas were raised, including representation from the Member for Watson Lake to me directly and to others in our Cabinet directly on this particular issue. There has been no decision with regard to a potential route for the road by either the community or the First Nation governments involved. The request to our government - there has not been a consensus reached in the community with regard to route or to paying for the road. There are a number of options that are being examined. What we have pledged to do is what they have asked us to do, which is to work with them on further refining all of these options. There are a number of them out there. There are a number of issues that are not resolved. There are a number of parties that have not discussed this at present. So, it's not just another study and it's not Liberals patting themselves on the back for listening to the communities.

What I'm telling the member opposite - and I hope he's hearing - is that the community asked us, as a government, for help at the personnel level in looking at what the options are and what the obstacles are, and that's what we're doing. In terms of an amount, it's personnel and expertise. That is what we're contemplating working on with the community.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, my understanding is that there is a request on the table for a road into quite a large R-block down there. Last year, there were THAs that were almost on the verge of being granted to a British Columbia company to access from British Columbia - a lot of opportunities and a lot of jobs going south.

So it would appear that, once again, we're going to review, study, consult. The economic opportunities that may or may not be forthcoming to the resource sector in the Watson Lake area are a long, long way down the road. And the construction of a road accessing this tremendous area of southeast Yukon in the Watson Lake area may not occur. I guess that's the Liberal way - study.

Probably by that time, Mr. Chair, we'll have a whole series of new parks in that area, and there won't be a need for a road there. We'll just have a whole group of conservation officers guarding the entrance to it and protecting it from any access. And we'll have a whole bunch more people moving out of Watson Lake and moving out of the Yukon to other jurisdictions, because the potential exists in that area for tremendous oil and gas opportunities and tremendous forestry possibilities, and the mineral potential in that part of the Tintina Trench that flows through there is known, but it requires a lot more attention and exploration, and that may or may not happen.

So, what do we have at the end of the day? We have another study, yet in the Budget Address that came forward - gee, a road in southeast Yukon, and a study of it. Well, the interpretation that most people have on these types of initiatives - it might happen, but the balance of probability under this Liberal government is very, very low, Mr. Chair.

Well, the interpretation that most people have on these kinds of initiatives is that it might happen, but the balance of probability under this Liberal government is very, very low, seeing that they really, really side with the environmentalist movement and the concept of probably withdrawing over 50 percent of the land mass of the Yukon and creating one big park. That seems to be the federal Liberal government's initiative that the Yukon Liberal Party is subscribing to. So, opportunities for Yukoners will be few and far between in that region.

Let's take it one step further, Mr. Chair. Does the Premier have an idea as to the timelines for a conclusion of this study group into this access road in southeast Yukon? Is there some sort of a final date, or is this study just going to lead to another study - to another fiscal cycle and a subsequent other fiscal cycle? Because, really, all we're seeing is review after review after review. But as far as economic development and economic stimulation that this government could do, the clock has virtually stopped under their governance. Are there some timelines that the minister could elaborate on in this review, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, for the benefit of the member opposite, I would just remind the member that this reference is from page 15 of the budget speech: "Leaders of both the municipal and First Nation governments in Watson Lake." And, I might add, although it's not contained in the budget speech, the Member for Watson Lake also requested that the government begin a preliminary study of an access road in southeast Yukon. That work will begin in the new fiscal year.

I have said to the member opposite already that this was a direct result of a request from mayor and council and from the Liard First Nation's chief and council and from the Member for Watson Lake. It was also the clear viewpoint of all three of those individuals involved that there has been no agreement reached or a consensus position reached on precisely the approach on a number of different options. The request at this point is for expertise, working with the government, so that none of these options get inadvertently taken off the table - that we continue to work with them.

That's what we're doing, and I said the work would begin in the new fiscal year, so, for the member opposite, that begins on April 1, 2001.

Mr. Jenkins:      Once again, Mr. Chair, we have another wonderful Liberal initiative that, on the surface, appears to be reasonable, but, at the end of the day, what do we have? We have another study that will probably end up being a doorstop in the Premier's office. That's it, because this government is going around telling everyone it's broke, that it doesn't have any money. The accumulated projected surplus will only be $6 million down the road. Here's an opportunity to construct a new road, a road to resources, to develop the potential of the oil and gas industry in southeast Yukon, to probably even bring natural gas into Watson Lake. If you look up at Inuvik, the First Nation community there distributes natural gas around Inuvik today, and they didn't have to bring the natural gas hundreds of miles either. The closest known deposits of natural gas to Watson Lake are in the same proximity as the natural gas that is developed and flowing through Inuvik today, Mr. Chair.

There's another opportunity for the government of the day to use a fuel that is more environmentally friendly than what is currently being used. The potential exists, and I would have thought that this forward-thinking government would do something other than look behind, blame everybody who preceded them, and spark initiatives that are going to enhance the quality of life for Yukoners, lower the cost of living here in the Yukon and spur development, because the Yukon could be energy self-sufficient. We could be, but instead we're watching that area just go by our front door and we're relying more and more than ever before on the importation of fossil fuels to heat ourselves, power our vehicles and generate electricity in many areas of Yukon.

Probably the one initiative we're not hearing too much about is that wonderful, great big turbine on the top of Haeckel Hill. I don't know. It probably should be put on top of the Cabinet offices here, Mr. Chair, and I'm sure they'd have a constant flow of the necessary product to keep the blades rotating around. But where it currently is, the air is going to be very cold and moist and will lead to rime icing, and we still don't know if that's a viable alternative. It sounds good but, at the end of the day, what is it going to cost for the energy that's generated, and can we afford it?

Mr. Chair, let's go back to the southeast Yukon. That area has a tremendous potential for forestry. There's also a small forestry community in and around Whitehorse, in the Haines Junction area, and even up in the Klondike area. But THAs are the issue - another federal government - and the minister, in her Budget Address, is sponsoring another summit, a forestry summit, this time. That's going to occur this spring. And we're going to, once again, bring together Yukoners from all across the territory to assist in developing the forestry industry. Could the minister explain how this is going to work? How are Yukoners going to develop the forestry industry when it's still a federal government area of responsibility?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The member opposite would like to leave the impression that we are somehow negligent because, as a government, we have not proceeded in the Yukon Party way of - never mind the fact that you have land claims to negotiate; never mind that you don't have jurisdiction. Just go in there and bulldoze and build a road. Never mind that we want to work with the community. No matter what the political stripe, we are working with the community on this particular issue, and we are working in a manner that the community requested us to work.

With regard to the forestry summit, I would be happy to answer specific questions around the forestry summit in the Economic Development debate. In general, I can advise the member opposite that this be granted. While we may not have the authority yet to issue timber harvesting agreements, we are very concerned that the federal government has not proceeded in a timely manner. However, rather than haranguing them from the opposition benches, we have endeavoured to work with the federal government on this matter, and I do believe that we are making good progress.

With regard to the forestry summit, the timing and discussions around the forestry summit have been held with First Nation governments, with the Government of Canada. This is an issue that some members like to say is way beyond politics. It's an important issue for all Yukoners. It's important that it is resolved, and that is what we are working toward. Among other things, the forestry summit is going to help us to do that.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, I finally agree with the Premier in her statement that this is way beyond Liberal politics. Probably that is very much the case. Here is another area that is controlled by the federal government - the timber harvesting agreements. The Liberals came into power 10 months ago, Mr. Chair, and they had a wonderful opportunity to clearly demonstrate this wonderful working relationship with their Liberal counterparts in Ottawa and do something for the Yukon - obtain timber quotas for the mill in Watson Lake.

Instead, the government was mute. They were mute, Mr. Chair. Even a subsequent request for funding to assist them in maintaining their operation and the number of jobs was denied by this Liberal government. So if we can't address the problem head on, the Liberal position here in the Yukon appears to be, Mr. Chair, "Let's go back and consult, let's hold another summit, and let's get together and talk about it." But the real issue before us today is how to get THAs out there and put people back to work.

Now, we're in budget debate, and it clearly spells out in the budget that a forestry summit will be held. When the opportunity presented itself to this Liberal government, Mr. Chair, one would deem it to have been appropriate for them to react and to be proactive and not just obtain timber harvest agreements for the Watson Lake area, but for other areas of the Yukon, and to sit down with the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, who, after the gold show last year, is persona non grata in the Yukon. But this year, the Premier doesn't have to worry. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs won't be at the gold show this year, embarrassing her or her government or the Liberals here in the Yukon, Mr. Chair, because there won't be a gold show this year. There isn't one. There's just been such a tremendous downturn in the mining community in the Klondike, and couple that with the facilities being under construction where the displays were put, there just was no enthusiasm to put the gold show on this year.

I'm also sure that the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs' message last year to the mining community in Dawson was one that clearly spelled out how the federal Liberals view mining and mining activity in the north, and specifically the Klondike, and what the minister was and, more so, was not prepared to do to assist the mining community. That was in spite of a tremendous number of Liberal supporters providing input to the minister. The message just wasn't there. So, there is no gold show this year and no opportunity for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to embarrass this Liberal government here in the Yukon. But where is the mining industry? Where is the certainty surrounding the mining industry? Where is the certainty surrounding the forest industry?

And how does the Premier expect to bring them back by holding summits? Is that the objective - to renew support for the industries? Just what is the objective? Is it to keep the Liberal Party in the highlights and the headlines? Because that's all we appear to be accomplishing by these initiatives, Mr. Chair.

When will the Premier be doing something positive in either the mining sector or the forestry sector? When is that going to take place, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, with respect to the forestry summit that this government is working on, we are continually asked in this Legislature why we don't work with members of the opposition. I would just like to advise the Member for Klondike that, in this particular initiative, we have worked with the Member for Watson Lake, the former forestry commissioner, who has had several very good discussions with the Minister of Renewable Resources and me.

We have not abandoned the work of previous governments, in terms of developing the forestry strategy. The difficulty with the forestry strategy that was developed under the previous regime was that the work was not completed, and there was a lack of First Nations' support with regard to the forestry strategy.

What we have done is look at forestry from not only a conservation perspective and a forest management perspective, but also from an economic perspective.

The Yukon government believes very strongly in the forestry industry - believes in it as an economic driver in our territory. We don't get to sign on the dotted line for a THA yet; we don't get to sign on the dotted line for a water licence yet, either, but we're working on devolution. That's a subject for another day, or later in this debate. We are involved in a number of initiatives toward this end, working at it from an economic development angle, without neglecting our conservation and sustainable values.

With regard to tenure development, we are participating with DIAND on the THA process. That has not been without its bumps along the way. However, we are working on that particular issue with DIAND, and those THAs have to provide more security for the industry and lead to improved access. That has been clear.

On forest management planning, we are participating in the forest management planning in Haines Junction and Teslin areas, and we have lobbied at the table actively for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to give priority to forest management planning in southeast Yukon.

The forestry summit, scheduled for early April of this year, is part of the Yukon government's commitment to lead the development of a coordinated forest management and development strategy. The reason for the dates being selected was a direct request from industry, from First Nation governments, and from others who are also working on these particular areas. It's not ours alone to deal with, and we're working with others, including other members of this House, in ensuring that what we do and the conclusions we reach are the right conclusions for Yukoners, and that we move the forest industry forward.

The member will just have to be patient to see further results.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, I'm encouraged to note that I have to patient, Mr. Chair.

I was quite pleased to also learn that, after some of the dismal answers provided in this House by the Minister of Renewable Resources, that he accepted, along with the Premier, a briefing from the forestry commissioner. I'm sure that the former forestry commissioner's knowledge of the industry in the Watson Lake area and the Yukon is quite encompassing. I'm sure that this was a tremendous opportunity for both the Premier and the Minister of Renewable Resources to become more aware of that industry, its potential and where the pitfalls were. I'm sure they have subsequently learned that much could be made of this wonderful working relationship that this Liberal Yukon government was elected on - that was supposed to exist between the federal Liberal government and the Yukon Liberal government. We really haven't seen much demonstration of its existence today, other than Mr. Martin charging us $100, or the Yukon Liberals charging us $100, if we want to go and listen to him say something over dinner one evening.

It's quite interesting, Mr. Chair, but the issue is to supply some certainty to the industry. That doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist whether it is the mining industry or the forestry industry.

When will this government be demonstrating this wonderful relationship between the federal Liberal government and the Yukon Liberal government? When will we see some results and some benefits? I mean, we have a federal Liberal government, we have a Yukon Liberal government, we have a Yukon Liberal senator, we have a Yukon Liberal commissioner, and we have a Yukon Liberal Member of Parliament. When are the benefits of this red tide going to accrue to Yukon? Now, if it is applied to seafood, you don't want to eat it because it will poison you, but maybe that is the case with this government. We've got too much of a red tide. But we should be seeing some benefits and we are not, Mr. Chair. The Yukon is going backwards at an alarming rate.

I don't want to be the one who has to wait to see some initiatives come forward in the forestry industry. Or, as the Premier spells it out, just be patient. Most of us have to feed our families, and in order to do so, more and more Yukoners are having to leave the Yukon. Welfare is not an alternative. Most people have chosen to pick up and move elsewhere - whether it be the Northwest Territories, northern British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, or elsewhere.

A number of the individuals from the Brewery Creek mine are being transferred by Viceroy over to Australia. That's where their company opportunities are. And they're going to be working on a mineral deposit over there that, while greater in size than the Brewery Creek deposit, has values that are less than the ore in the Brewery Creek deposit, Mr. Chair.

So it begs the question: what's wrong with this equation? Why can't the Yukon move ahead? Why can't we move ahead in our traditional areas?

The Premier may or may not know that Cantung is looking at reopening, and it's an underground operation. It requires timber, and that timber for the mine could well have come out of the Watson Lake region. It could, but it'll probably be trucked up from British Columbia because this Liberal Premier and her colleagues have failed to redress the shortcomings in the forestry sector. All we're going to see is a forestry summit, and all the mills in Watson Lake are going to be told to be patient. We're all going to be told to be patient. There are some great opportunities out there, and they're going to be going right by our door.

Now, other than this summit for the forestry industry, is the Premier planning any other initiatives within this fiscal period that we have on the floor for debate today?

And if it's no, just stand up and say no. And if it's no, it's because, number one, they're either not capable of addressing the shortfalls or they don't want to, because we're going to create that area into one big park. And if that's the case, the minister could just be forthright and say so.

But we'd really like to know what is going to happen. We know what could happen. We know what the potential is. But the Premier is now the captain of the good ship SS Yukon Titanic, Mr. Chair. It wasn't a very long voyage that the Titanic took, but we know we have 30 more months of potential Liberal rule.

Now, are we all expected to be patient for 30 more months? What other initiatives is the government planning in this fiscal period, if any, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I got fairly caught up in listening to the unfortunately belittling comments from the member opposite. I believe the question is this: what other initiatives is this government planning in terms of fulfilling our commitment to rebuild the Yukon economy?

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I'm being advised that the member opposite wishes me to speak about forestry alone.

With regard to forestry, the outcome of the forestry summit is expected to be a set of principles and guidelines, assisting the Yukon government in developing a forest industry strategy. We are continuing in our efforts at devolution, and we're continuing with working with the federal government in terms of the tenure development and the THA as well.

So, the government is continuing to work on this issue, to the point where we anticipate - the member opposite's real question is whether or not there will be delivery of a product at the end of the summit. Yes, there will. And will that product guide us in developing this industry? Yes, it will. Are we working with the federal government on THA and tenure, because they're still the ones that sign off on this? Yes, we are. Will there be progress? We're certainly working on it.

Mr. Jenkins:      I'm sure the product that will be developed at the end of the summer will be another report, another doorstop. We have seen a report now come through in the forestry commission. Where's that report at? Has that been adopted by this Liberal government, or is it just another doorstop in the Premier's office, or has she taken the time to even read it, Mr. Chair?

Where is the forest commissioner's report, developed by the NDP? Where's that strategy now? Is it being looked at or even considered, or are we going to go back and reinvent the wheel, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I had already advised the member opposite that, as opposition members, we had praised the work of the forestry commissioner, and as a government member -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Perhaps the Member for Watson Lake will one day see fit to acknowledge the fact that, yes, this government is very open and that it doesn't require belittling comments in the House for us to be open.

With regard to the forest strategy, the member opposite asked where it sits right now. It was not the end product. There is more work to be done. We are building on the initial work that was done, and at the end of the day -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The member opposite once again doesn't want to listen to the answer. The member just believes that we're going to get a report and do nothing with it. He refuses to believe that it may - and it will - prove to be a map for a forestry industry in this territory.

Mr. Fentie:      I would just like to join the debate here briefly, now that we're talking about forestry. I think we can all agree that the forestry sector has long been and continues to be an extremely important component of any economy, especially in places like Watson Lake. It has always been an economic engine of some sort.

I would just like to explore something with the Premier in terms of the summit and with regard to designing industry. There's a very important point here that has to be addressed. To design a forest industry, the very foundation and the basis of that industry is the trees. We have a federal government here that has failed to put a number to the volume, to the size, to the area. One of the most vital components of designing any forest industry is knowing how many cubic metres annually, what is the average size of that annual volume, what is the distance from the manufacturing facility or facilities, and so on and so forth.

Can the Premier give us any indication of what the government at this time believes the federal government's timelines are on THAs? Because that is the trigger that will basically launch everything else. Is there any indication from DIAND at this time as to what it is they're doing?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Yes, Mr. Chair. I do have some information for the member opposite. I don't have it with me in the House. I'll provide it to the member opposite either after the 4:30 break or first thing tomorrow morning.

Mr. Fentie:      Something else that I will mention here, Mr. Chair, is that the uptake on the summit and the work that DIAND has been d