Whitehorse, Yukon

Speaker:      I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I rise in the House today on behalf of my colleague, the minister responsible for the Women’s Directorate, and other members of Cabinet and caucus to recognize March 8 as International Women’s Day.

On this day, every year, we honour women by acknowledging their achievements and their strength.

The theme of this year’s celebration is "Canadian women: raising our diverse voices for positive change." Throughout the centuries, women have raised their voices in protest against injustice, to demand equality and to turn the light on situations that required it.

Just last year, the World March of Women drew governments’ attention to dangers and injustices still facing women throughout the world. Here at home, the unpaid work women do, from working with Girl Guides or Big Sisters, to sitting on the boards of Kaushee’s Place and the Status of Women is invaluable. From the quiet voice caring for children to the demands for a better world for everyone, women work for positive changes.

In Whitehorse, as in previous years, the main celebration for International Women’s Day will take place at the CYO hall on Saturday, March 10. The traditional potluck dinner, followed by entertainment, is organized by the Victoria Faulkner Women’s Centre and is funded by the Women’s Directorate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Netro:      I rise today on behalf of the official opposition, to pay tribute to International Women’s Day. March 8 was proclaimed in 1977 as International Women’s Day, following more than 50 years of marking a day of recognition for women and their struggles toward equality in a variety of countries.

This day is to recognize that women are important members of society, who deserve recognition for their contributions to society. It is a day to look at the progress that has been made in the struggle for equality, peace and development, while recognizing how far there still is to go. It provides us with a day to unite, network and celebrate our communities and beyond. It allows us to reflect on the progress that has been made while acknowledging that, in many parts of the world, progress has been much slower.

Celebrating International Women’s Day allows us to support each other in our personal choices, and celebrate that we have been able to make choices, knowing that not all women have choices.

While we have made gains toward the rights and equality of women, it is important to remember that women still do not have the same privileges as men. Men still make more money than women, although the gap has been reduced in some countries, including Canada. Unpaid work, like housework, is still done mostly by women. Low paid work, like child care, is still done mostly by women. Men still dominate the positions of power in the political and business worlds. We are very lucky in the Yukon to have such strong leadership from women in politics.

Violence against women is a serious problem in countries around the world and here in the Yukon. Until the rights and equality of women around the world have been ensured, it is unlikely that the economic, political and social problems facing us can be resolved.

It is important that we, collectively and individually, continue to work to improve the lives of women, both globally and locally. It is our duty as legislators to do everything we can to further the cause of women’s rights and equality.

There are a number of events in recognition of International Women’s Day. On Thursday, March 8, we’re having a meeting called "What Women Want". On Friday, March 9, there’s the First Nations International Women’s Day event. On Saturday, March 10, there’s the International Women’s Day potluck supper. Please take time to attend one or more of these events.

Mahsi’cho.

Mr. Jenkins:      On behalf of the Yukon Party, I rise to also pay tribute to International Women’s Day as an opportunity to recognize how much women have achieved over the last century and to commemorate women’s accomplishments as well as struggles.

This year’s theme, "Canadian women: raising our diverse voices for positive change," emphasizes the positive impact where women have raised their voices. Here in the Yukon, we have a rich and diverse culture of women sharing a long tradition of speaking out, taking action and making a positive impact on our communities. Whether it be fundraising, caregiving, lending a hand, or involvement in political life, women contribute to the quality of life in this territory on a daily basis.

The countless contributions women have made to our history, our quality of life and to our future, continue to inspire us to be better people and to help make our world a better place for all.

Today we observe International Women’s Day by celebrating the accomplishments that women have made over the past century. At the same time, let us not forget the countless women who were not given — and are still not given — equal opportunities simply because of their gender. Today, for example, women are paid considerably less than their counterparts. Of those living below the poverty line in Canada, the overwhelming majority of them are women.

International Women’s Day is a time for all of us to reflect on what progress has been made over the last century. It’s a time to call for change and a time for us to renew our commitment to the cause of equality. Women have a great deal to be proud of and I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those individuals on this very day.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in introducing a very hard-working group that for the past two years have been working on active living: the chair of that committee, Nesta Leduc, Linda Armstrong, Joyce Young, Karen Thomson, Kathy Zrum, Diney William, Jeff O’Farrell, Chris Milner, and David Hayley. I welcome you here. I appreciate the fact that you’ve come to join us in this very momentous moment. I would ask the House to join in welcoming you here.

Applause

Mr. Kent:      Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Paul Deuling’s grade 11 social studies class from F.H. Collins.

Applause

Speaker:      Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I have for tabling the Yukon government’s response to the minister’s task force for active living. Thank you.

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

Any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      It is with great pleasure that I rise today with an important announcement on how the Yukon government is working to implement the Yukon active living strategy.

One of this government’s key commitments to Yukoners involves taking a new and forward-thinking approach to health and wellness, one that recognizes the importance of lifestyle and prevention in shaping health policy and in delivering health-related programs and services.

Active living is the cornerstone to a prevention-based approach to individual and community health. A study commissioned by the Government of Canada in 1998 indicated that reducing the number of inactive Canadians by just 10 percent would result in annual health care savings of $5 billion. The Yukon is part of a national commitment to make this happen by the year 2003.

Mr. Speaker, the benefits of active living go beyond just our physical health. Active living also has an important role to play in individual well-being and the quality of life in our communities. We’re moving away from the "no-pain, no-gain" approach to physical activity, recognizing that the experience of being physically active involves body, mind and spirit.

We want to encourage more Yukoners to embrace physical activity into their daily lives, whether it be playing with the kids, walking the dog, gardening, cycling to work, picking berries, walking in the woods, or participating in organized sport and recreation activities.

Last May, I received a strategy from the task force on active living, outlining recommendations to support and promote active living opportunities for individuals, schools, communities and workplaces. My department has worked closely with its partners in Health and Social Services, Education, the Public Service Commission, the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board and the Women’s Directorate, to determine how we can best combine our resources to put the task force’s strategy into action.

The result is a plan that will see implementation of several recommendations, beginning immediately. Our detailed response is outlined in the document I tabled today.

I’m pleased to announce that our government will invest nearly $130,000 in 2001-02 to help put the first stage of the Yukon active living strategy in motion. Highlights of these initiatives include hiring an active living coordinator to help oversee the implementation of the Yukon active living strategy; the development of an extensive community-based public awareness campaign for the entire Yukon; a pilot project for a green prescription program, endorsed by the Yukon Medical Association, where participating individuals will be prescribed physical activity as an integral element of their treatment programs; and the development of an extensive, school-based active living awareness and education program in Yukon schools. As part of this, the development of criteria which will see all Yukon schools designated as active living schools by the year 2003.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the task force members for their efforts in developing the Yukon active living strategy. My colleague, the Member for Porter Creek North, was a dedicated member of the task force and continues to promote active living in his capacity as the Minister of Health and Social Services. He puts most of us to shame.

I would also like to recognize the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes who, as the former Minister of Community and Transportation Services, was responsible for forming the active living task force.

At this time, I would like to ask the members opposite to lend their support to this important initiative in the interests of promoting positive social change for all Yukoners. As an incentive to sweeten the deal, I’ll be providing each of you and the members of the media with an active living T-shirt.

In closing, I’d like to say that I am walking my talk where active living is concerned. I count myself among those Yukoners who need to incorporate more physical activity in their daily lives. I have recently started wearing a pedometer, a little gadget that tracks my steps to help me meet my personal goal of 10,000 steps a day. I have an awful lot of steps to walk.

I challenge all my colleagues in this House to count themselves in and to help set a good example for Yukoners. After all, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one small step. Together, we can make a difference to help improve not only the physical health of Yukoners, but our quality of life and community well-being, as well.

Mr. McRobb:      I am pleased to rise today in response to the minister’s statement regarding the active living strategy. It is important to recognize that a strategy for active living needs to be implemented soon so that we can more quickly reap the benefits from such a program. I would like to thank the minister for recognizing the efforts of the MLA for Ross River-Southern Lakes who got this strategy rolling in the first place.

Any such strategy needs to set targets and evaluate the effectiveness of its programs on an ongoing basis. I hope we can expect to receive regular reports on the strategy, so that the public, through discussion and debate, will have an opportunity to provide their feedback to the minister.

I would like to suggest that a commitment to a strategy should be reflected in all areas of public policy, so I welcome the news that the minister will be working with other departments in order to implement the strategy on the widest possible basis. This is an area where it would be helpful if the minister could provide the House with regular reports about the progress of these discussions.

In order for the strategy to work effectively, there needs to be a commitment on the part of the minister and her department to evidence-based advocacy to assist in the development and growth of policies to promote active living. The minister and her department should work with the task force to develop sound and relevant evidence of the benefits of the active living strategy so that the strategy implementation and policy development is enhanced.

There should be an emphasis on a multi-sectoral approach to the strategy. We all know that if such an important initiative only remains on the pages of policy books, the strategy will not be able to deliver the benefits that we know it is capable of. That said, I would suggest that a public awareness campaign is simply not enough. There needs to be more money available to and directed at community groups who already help to provide opinions and opportunities.

The key to healthy and active living in the Yukon requires the participation of everyone in the territory. In this connection, we can only regret the cuts announced for the community development fund and wonder about the extent of this government’s commitment to active living. An active living strategy should look at target groups — groups who do not have the resources or the opportunities to participate in physical activity as often as other groups. I would like to suggest that people who live in rural areas may be one such group, as are people with disabilities, another. Relevant support of facilities needs to be set up within our urban areas in Whitehorse and in other communities to enable low income population groups to also benefit from sport and physical activity policy and programming. I would encourage the minister to take a long-term view when it comes to program development. There needs to be a commitment to capacity building and a commitment to partnerships. There needs to be a commitment to the long-term viability and sustainability of the active living strategy.

Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, I tried to obtain a copy of the strategy from the front desk. I was informed they weren’t available there. I would like to suggest to the minister that such documentation should be available in all government offices.

I would like to laud the minister in her personal commitments to a healthier lifestyle, and also inform members that I will be participating in a professional sports event later this month. I would invite all members and all Yukoners to join me in participating in the second annual Kluane open chess tournament in Haines Junction. This March 25 event is scheduled at the convention centre in beautiful Haines Junction. I would also note that chess is recognized as an international sport.

Perhaps more seriously, I would invite the minister to join me any time next summer to participate in hiking any one of the beautiful trails in the Kluane region.

Mr. Jenkins:      I rise in response to this ministerial statement on the Yukon active living strategy, or what we should come to call the "anti couch-potato strategy".

I was somewhat surprised to learn that the minister is wearing a pedometer to help track her steps in her personal quest to achieve 10,000 steps a day, in view of the fact that the ministerial statement was half an hour late arriving at our office. I’d ask the minister to speed up her pedometer to ensure, in the future, that our ministerial statements arrive on time.

I also note with interest that the minister drives the two blocks to work, and I would encourage her to lead by example. That has been the case in the past. It has probably been curtailed somewhat before this ministerial statement, to ensure a good role model.

Mr. Speaker, the minister will find no arguments from this side of the House that active living promotes health and wellness and, ultimately, helps reduce our health care costs. I believe most Canadians, most Yukoners, now accept the premise that physical activity promotes health and wellness. Previously, an 18-year old Canadian was about as healthy as an 80-year old Swede, but today I believe that has changed. To what extent, I’m not sure — perhaps the minister can give a report in her response as to where Canadians, and Yukoners in particular, rate on the health and fitness scale.

I cannot help but notice that this government is planning to spend $130,000 to implement this strategy and that the Minister of Health and Social Services helped to put the strategy together. According to media reports this morning, however, the Minister of Health and Social Services has given a comparable sum of money, $139,000, to AIDS Yukon Alliance to cope with the 30 people who are HIV positive here in the Yukon. But he isn’t prepared to help the 400 people afflicted with hep C, represented by the Positive Life group

Accordingly, I would urge this minister and her colleagues, the Minister of Health and Social Services, to ensure that, when they are establishing new strategies, they devote the necessary resources to those who need the help the most. I would also seek some assurances from the minister that the government isn’t setting up any new bureaucracy to administer this strategy, and that the bulk of the money will be program money and not devoted to administration.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I thank the members opposite for their comments. I will be pleased to update the House on a regular basis on the progress of the active living strategy implementation.

One of the target groups the Member for Kluane is speaking about is surely the Legislative Assembly, and I’d be pleased to accompany any of the members any time on a walk or a hike, and the strategy can certainly be made available at government offices.

Now, the Member for Klondike is incorrect that I drive the two blocks to work. Driving to work is the exception rather than the rule. He should note that he hasn’t seen my van in the parking lot out there this year more than once or twice.

I should also note that the Minister of Health and Social Services helped to put the strategy together before he was an MLA, and he continues his good work and his active living now. I’m disappointed that the Member for Klondike chose to stray off topic in his reply to this ministerial statement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Literacy

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I am pleased to rise today and announce an exciting partnership that will help to improve literacy in the Yukon. For those who are at ease with literacy, it is sometimes difficult to appreciate how challenging everyday tasks can be for those who are not. Imagine what it must be like not to be able to fill out a job application, understand instructions on a prescription bottle, or simply to read to your child. These are challenges that many Canadians face every day, because unfortunately, despite our excellent public education programs, an estimated 5 million Canadians have difficulty with literacy and numeracy.

In 1994, nine countries, including Canada, participated in the international adult literacy survey. This was the world’s first large-scale comparative assessment of adult literacy. It provided unprecedented data and information about the causes and consequences of literacy skill deficits. However, the territories were not included in the Canadian portion of the survey. This has hampered our ability to determine the literacy needs of Yukon people.

When we became aware that another, even more detailed, Canadian survey was being planned, the advanced education branch of the Department of Education looked for ways to ensure that Yukon people would not be excluded again. Working in partnership with the B.C./Yukon region of Human Resources Development Canada, the national literacy secretariat and Statistics Canada, the advanced education branch has formed an agreement to include 1,400 Yukon residents in the next Canadian survey. When designing the Yukon adult literacy and skills survey, we wanted a fair representation of all our residents. Therefore, of the 1,400 adults to be surveyed, half will be from Whitehorse and the other half from Yukon communities.

We expect that this formula will provide us with a realistic cross-section of Yukon people and their various levels of literacy skills.

The Yukon adult literacy and skills survey will take place in 2002 and will test not only reading and writing abilities, but also other important life skills in areas of teamwork, information, computer technology, numeracy, and problem solving. The survey itself is a combination of written and interview questions and will take approximately two hours to complete. I am also happy to state that several Yukon people will be employed to conduct the survey.

Spread over three years, advanced education and the National Literacy Secretariat will each contribute $195,000, HRDC will provide $150,000 and Stats Canada will provide a further $90,000. This unique partnership will provide $630,000 in funding needed to survey Yukon’s literacy needs. We are confident that, once the results of the Yukon adult literacy skills survey are available in 2003, they will provide invaluable information about the particular literacy levels and needs of Yukon people. They will help us to design made-in-Yukon literacy programs.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the unique partnership the advanced education branch has formed in funding this incredibly important project. It is an excellent example of how governments can pool their resources toward a worthy outcome.

The benefits of the Yukon adult literacy and skills survey will be far-reaching, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, Yukon Learn has always supported the need for this survey to occur in Yukon and also recognizes the value of its potential results. We expect that the data will provide a means to identify effective ways to help Yukon people increase their literacy skills, improve their quality of life, and better develop the skills required to be competitive in both local and global economies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fairclough:      I would like to respond to this ministerial statement briefly.

First of all, I think this is a very positive initiative, and I thank the minister for putting it together and bringing it to where it will be working for us. It certainly gives us a tool and much-needed information to work with, down the road in the future.

I would like to ask the minister to consider some of the other things, the here and now. For example, consider injured workers who, through Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board, have tried hard to get into a different career — and this is all about literacy, and about here and now — and also those who are wanting to get job-ready now.

In regard to the pipeline, for example, some things are just not happening, and there are those who are failing exams. It’s all about literacy. So those I’d like to ask the minister to consider in this survey, and maybe target that specifically, and to also concentrate on training — on here and now — and getting people job-ready, for example, for the pipeline. I think we need to look at this very seriously, because the workforce is leaving the Yukon. In the recent information provided to this House, it is those between the ages of 25 and 40, and that’s our main workforce. So what we’re going to be doing is basically relying on our younger workers and our older workers, and there is a vast difference in technology between those ages. In some terms, it may not necessarily be a bad thing, having our older workers taking in the younger, but get them up to speed so they are able to communicate with new technologies and so on.

So I do look forward to the results of the survey.

Thank you.

Mr. Jenkins:      The Yukon Party believes that literacy and numeracy are of fundamental importance to Yukoners, and that is why they figured so prominently in our party’s policies and platforms.

We have constantly emphasized that it is essential to improve Yukon students’ basic skills in reading and writing, as well as their mathematical skills in computing and problem solving. We plan to achieve these goals through standardized testing and core curriculum. We plan to achieve these goals by conducting student eye, hearing and speech examinations, to ensure that there are no physical impediments to learning.

We plan to improve Yukon’s literacy and numeracy skills by implementing a comprehensive strategy to deal with one of Yukon’s most serious impediments to learning: FAS and FAE.

This ministerial statement today concerns adult literacy, but I’m here today to tell you that many young Yukoners who are going through our education system are not learning to read and write adequately, do math or problem-solve adequately. Now that, in a large part, is due to the fact that there are three distinct educational systems in the Yukon. There’s one system for Whitehorse; there’s another system for rural Yukon. In Whitehorse, it’s broken down further, to a public school system and a Catholic school system, where the ultimate number of educated students are proceeding through the Catholic school system. That is a shame, Mr. Speaker.

Reports in the Globe and Mail yesterday and today have exposed the fact that, in Ontario alone, 170,000 grade 10 students — or 29 percent — failed to pass a basic literacy test. Mr. Speaker, if a similar test were administered in Yukon schools, how many of our students would pass? These are our young people, so one can imagine the extent of the problem among Yukon’s adult population, a population that has been afflicted with FAS/FAE.

While I welcome initiatives such as this to determine the extent of Yukon’s adult literacy problem, I must express concern about the length of time it will take to conduct this survey. The results won’t be available until 2003, two years from now. The government will be on its way out of office before it can actually assess the extent of the problem and develop a plan of action.

I would like to save the minister some time and some money. I am asking him to assume that literacy in Yukon’s adult population is acute and take corrective action now. These people need help right away — now — not in two or three or four years from now. There are programs that this government can implement now, without waiting for three years to design a made-in-Yukon literacy program. Time is of the essence. Act now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      With all due respect to the comments that come from the official opposition, I will take into consideration the suggestion and recommendation made by the leader of the official opposition with respect to injured workers, and I will be approaching the minister responsible on that.

I am also encouraged that the Department of Education, through its advanced education branch, is currently training various individuals right across the territory and already establishing training practices for oil and gas in anticipation of the pipeline that is coming down the Alaska Highway — that will be coming down the Alaska Highway, Mr. Speaker.

It is always interesting, though, to hear the responses that we do get from ministerial statements. I am pleased that the opposition on this day didn’t stand up and question the length or the content of our ministerial statement today, because they are both very worthwhile projects.

They always manage to get their political messages in, which I guess is their just due in these undertakings. The official opposition leader had indicated that somehow this project that I announced by ministerial statement is resulting in the workforce leaving the territory. I’m finding it a little difficult to find the linkage there, but I’m sure if I look a little deeper I’ll find it.

With respect to the comments that I heard from the Member for Klondike, I do agree with some of the things that he said. We do recognize that we have some literacy problems right within our current education system. It is through the Department of Education that we are addressing those needs and concerns and working with the administrators in the schools as well as school councils to identify the needs and where we can concentrate our efforts.

So, we are taking immediate action now, but then again, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Klondike does go off on tangents, as he often does, and is sponsoring the notion, which is incredibly incorrect, that we have three education systems here in the territory. Despite his rhetoric on that fact, I think we will find that we don’t have three education systems in the territory, and that we have very competent and able-bodied teachers in our system throughout.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services this afternoon, based on this morning’s CBC report. There was an interview with a spokesperson for Positive Lives and we certainly know that that’s the group that represents people with hepatitis C.

I’d like to ask the minister this: why did the minister tell this group not to go public with the struggles for funding?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      The question is a good one, because obviously it’s a media question, and I have to tell you that I met with the Yukon AIDS Alliance people and with Positive Lives. They spoke to me about the merits of their services to Yukoners. They spoke to me about their funding requirements from the federal government and from YTG. They also spoke to me about their past conflict between these two groups and the current conflict, obviously. Our discussions resulted in my advice to them to seek mediation and to work things out for the best of Yukoners.

With respect to Positive Lives, I complimented them on their ability to go to the media in the past; however, I encouraged them to mediate with the AIDS Alliance people in this situation. I have been informed that the two parties do not want to go to mediation. In light of this, we are committed to providing Yukoners with appropriate cost-effective services, and we will encourage all non-profit organisations to meet their goals to serve Yukoners.

Whenever possible, this government believes in the one-window approach. We are a population of 30,000 people. Unfortunately, sometimes people have their own ways and means of trying to do things. We cannot be setting up offices all over the Yukon, just because one group or two or three individuals have different ideas. We must work together. Our finances are limited. We are taking steps to ensure that we have one-window delivery. We encourage NGOs to work together wherever possible to avoid duplication.

In the specific case with the AIDS Alliance and Positive Lives, two groups who used to be one, we offered mediation.

Speaker:      Order please. Would the minister please conclude.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Are we going to cut Hospice? Are we going to cut Teegatha'Oh Zheh? No, Mr. Speaker, we’re going to try to do the best we can.

Mr. Keenan:      I thank the member for his speech, Mr. Speaker, but that’s not exactly what I asked for. I got the words from the member opposite that he was there to provide advice. Well, "would not be in your interest to go to the media" — that doesn’t sound like advice, Mr. Speaker. It sounds like the silencer. It sounds like 1984’s George Orwell’s Big Brother approach. The member never answered the question.

I asked the member why he told him not to go public. What the member’s basically saying is that he didn’t say that, but he threatened him a little. So now, he’s saying, "That’s what I said, but that’s not what I meant," so I’d like the member now to stand on his feet and apologize to the Positive Lives group for the inaction and for the wording.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Thanks again for the question. We know the member opposite is great at fear-mongering. As a matter of fact, he gets the award for —

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

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

Mr. Keenan:      I’d love to hear the message from the speaker opposite but, unfortunately, the microphones are not working, and you know my hearing problem, Mr. Speaker, so I’d appreciate if you’d get that fixed.

Speaker:      Order please. I’ll turn the clock off. Is there a way that we can address that right now? I don’t know if it’s something in the system.

Could the Minister of Health and Social Services please test his mike?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Do you hear me?

Speaker:      Order please. I’ll ask the minister to begin his reply again, please.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll repeat, for the member opposite, the fact that fear-mongering does not work with this government, Mr. Speaker. It does not work with the public, and I’m going to say, at this point, I did not tell any group not to go to the media. That would be foolish on any politician’s behalf to do that, so I did not say not to go to the media.

I think that it is very important that it is easy for many of us to do this kind of thing in the public, but when the facts are there, it’s quite a different story.

I think that it is very important for us to understand that we are a government that lays things on the table. I am known not to play around with little idiosyncrasies or little innuendoes — I lay it on the table, and if there are problems, I approach whomever it is and ask if we can come to some decisions. We are transparent, we are honest and we are fair. I believe that people must solve their own problems. I am not able to do that if they are not able to.

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

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I made it very clear, Mr. Speaker, to both groups, that mediation was the way to go. I made no statement about not going to the media.

Mr. Keenan:      I am not standing here fear-mongering. I am not saying that the facts are different from what they are. What I am saying is what I have heard.

I, too, have been involved in this for quite some time. I, too, have met with the HIV people and I, too, have made suggestions that would help. But the Health minister is not answering the questions. What, basically, the Health minister stood up here and said is that the hepatitis C folks, Positive Lives, are liars, and that is not what I want to hear in this House. I want to hear an apology for the implied discrepancies on the truth by the minister.

Now, will the minister please stand and give that answer of an apology and then will the minister please give his assurance that the people with hepatitis C will not miss out on the funding that is required to deliver their program?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, the way to resolve conflict is to discuss the differences and to seek mediation if they’re not able to do that themselves. It’s about thinking creatively; it’s about thinking how we can deliver a service to Yukoners. I have encouraged everyone to do that. I have encouraged the Alliance people to do that; I have encouraged the Positive Lives people to do that. They chose not to do it. So, I can’t make that happen if they don’t want it.

I do recommend that, before we go anywhere, mediation or discussion or dialogue take place. Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken to Positive Lives since those meetings. They have not come back to me to ask me whether we could do something different. We were open to any kind of solution or resolution of this issue. Instead, they chose to go on the air. Why would I even make a suggestion like that to a group when I know that’s what they use? They have done that in the past. Why would I be foolish enough to make that kind of a comment to a group that I know has used the media before?

Mr. Speaker, I think that’s a very important question that we should ask ourselves.

Question re:   Hepatitis C, Positive Lives funding

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, again I’d like to point out that the minister hasn’t answered any of the questions that I have asked of him, and then he throws a question at me, asking why would he be foolish enough. The member has built his own nest so now he’s got to live in his own nest, and if he’s not comfortable with that nest, unfortunately it’s of his own self-construction.

Mr. Speaker, we’re talking about very serious issues here. We’re talking about people’s lives and their health, and we can’t be doing this through backroom deals. We have to be right out front with these type of things.

I understand that there are about 30 diagnosed cases of HIV and AIDS in the territory and 400 cases of hepatitis C, and, Mr. Speaker, some people even suffer from the same illness.

Now that the groups have turned down the mediation, what process is the department going to follow to get the necessary funds where they belong?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, all we can do as government is try to support and help those NGOs that are doing the job out in the community. Because they have spats, because they have differences and because we try to encourage them to resolve their differences — that’s all we can do is offer mediation, Mr. Speaker. The important part in this whole issue is for groups like that to try to build some kind of consensus about what they want to do and how they want to approach the whole issue of HIV and hepatitis C. It’s not up to me to come up with the decision of what they should do. I would not do that. That’s why we have NGOs out there that want to do what they do best. And we encourage that. It’s obvious by our budget. We gave increases to almost everyone that we could because we believed in the NGO process.

So, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying right now is that the door is still open. We are still waiting for some response from our NGO groups. It’s up to them to make some kind of a suggestion as to how they want to approach it.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that Positive Lives went to the media because the minister would not listen to them. They didn’t go there as a first resort; they went there as a last resort. Now, what do I hear from the minister at this time, standing on his feet in the House? He’s cutting them loose. He’s cutting them loose, saying, "Well, I gave it my best shot. It didn’t work. I don’t know what to do." Mr. Speaker, is that a sign of an open and accountable government? Does it sound like we’re building trust in government? Not to me. It doesn’t sound like they’re building trust in government at all.

Now, I’d like to ask again, what is the minister going to do to bring these organizations together? Now that the federal government has restored the health funding, what is the minister going to do to bring them together to ensure that those over 300 cases out there are not suffering and are getting the service that they need? It’s a very simple question.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for that question. I take exception to his term "cutting them loose". I would suggest that NGOs — any groups out there — are not being cut loose. They do what they do best. They come to government with concrete proposals; they come to us to provide that kind of information that will do a better job than we as government can do. And I don’t know how much more we can do, other than try to encourage mediation with two groups that are having differences, Mr. Speaker.

We still want delivery of services, and we’re encouraging the two groups that we have mentioned to come forward with what their ideas are on how they would propose that we meet the needs of Yukoners. Mr. Speaker, I’ll mention it again: neither of these groups came to me and said that there was a problem. The next thing we know, it’s in the media.

So, I think there’s a bit of courtesy here. I don’t go to the media sharing what differences I may have with whatever group. I usually go to the people first. Then we try to look for solutions, Mr. Speaker. I believe that wasn’t returned in the same way.

So, the important part is that we’re open, we’re transparent, and we’re trying to solve a problem, but remember, we’re in the middle. We’re not the people who really have to deliver the program at this point.

Mr. Keenan:      They’re so open and so transparent that even I can see that the minister’s nose is out of joint.

Standing on the floor of the House, singing an old Beatles song, called "Come Together" — that just ain’t going to cut it in this House. It just is not going to cut it in this House.

I want to reiterate — what is the minister going to do to bring two groups together, and what is the minister going to do to provide the services for the two groups? They both have different mandates. They both have, in some cases, the same clients, but they both have different clients. What is the minister going to do? Is the minister going to give his assurance that people with hep C will not miss out on the funding because Positive Lives has gone public? Again, just a simple answer.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I know the member opposite would like to hear me sing. He knows I have such a good voice for singing.

Mr. Speaker, I think the important part in this whole development is that we are not at all looking at cutting services. We’re not, at this point, delivering the services. Aids Alliance is delivering the service at this point, Mr. Speaker. Now we have another group that would like to have part of the action, and that is going to be up to those groups to bring forward what they would like to do, and how they would like to proceed with this. I’m not going to predetermine what they should do or how they should do it.

I said before that our door is open. We want a solution; we want a resolution. I can only offer mediation and support for what we’re doing.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, I did not threaten anybody here about cutting resources or cutting funding. The member opposite did that, and the group that was in the paper said that. I never said anything about cutting services.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order

Point of order

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

Mr. Keenan:      The gentleman just stood on his feet and said that I was the one who implied a threat. No, Mr. Speaker, I brought the threat to this House as it was implied to me. So, to try and throw smoke and mirrors on this very serious issue, I think is absolutely appalling and I demand an apology and a retraction.

Speaker:      Minister of Health and Social Services, on the point of order.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, I will correct that comment. I didn’t mean the member opposite cut it; I am just saying that the member opposite mentioned it — I did not mention it.

Speaker:      Does the minister’s explanation satisfy the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes?

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, nothing about that minister satisfies me, but I will have to live with it.

Speaker:      Thank you very much. I will ask the minister to conclude his answer. If the minister is finished, we will proceed to the leader of the third party.

Question re: Hepatitis C, Positive Lives funding

Mr. Jenkins:      A question for the same minister on virtually the same topic: last week we heard from the president of the Yukon Video and Film Industry Association, that he was advised by this minister, acting on behalf of the Minister of Tourism, to not say anything to the media. Today we hear from the founder of Positive Lives, a group representing 400 Yukoners afflicted with hepatitis C, that he was advised by the minister not to go to the media to explain his association’s difficulties with government. How does the minister justify this government’s intimidation and the implied threat that if an NGO goes to the media, their funding or avenue to governments will be cut off? How many other groups has the minister tried to intimidate?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I will sort of take back a little bit of what I said about the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes being the classic fear-mongerer; it actually is the Member for Klondike. First of all, mistruths are sometimes not always the truth, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:      Order please. I must caution the minister —

Withdrawal of remark

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I withdraw that.

Speaker:      The minister withdraws the comment. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      The whole story is always a problem and for me to give any kind of direction to any group about what they should or should not do is not the way that I operate, Mr. Speaker.

I’m not interested in mediating issues in the media. I could maybe comment on why I’m not interested in that, but I won’t. The important part is that we, as individuals, must try to resolve our own issues, Mr. Speaker, so if there’s the insinuation there that I do this with other groups, maybe the Member for Klondike should read over the facts, rather than try to present something that is a smoke-and-mirrors approach to addressing an issue.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, all we are presenting is the facts. It is the minister who is trying to steer them away and around and twist them into a pretzel.

The Liberal election platform states they want elected officials to lead by example, to be more accountable for their actions. How can the minister justify government intimidation as being an example for others to follow and being in accord with the Liberal government’s commitment to be more open and accountable?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I’m not sure where the Member for Klondike is getting the idea of intimidation. Is it because we asked for mediation to resolve an issue? That’s intimidation? I don’t think so, Mr. Speaker. That is trying to resolve an issue and if that’s what the Member for Klondike suggests is intimidation, then I believe that the dictionary may have another definition for it.

The important part here is helping Yukoners. It’s helping Yukoners through a one-window approach, trying to build on the strengths of all Yukoners. To make the idea that we are trying to do something different and we’re not transparent, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely not true.

Speaker:      Order please. I’d ask the minister not to make comments regarding truths or not true or untruths. I’d ask the minister to withdraw that, please.

Withdrawal of remark

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I withdraw it.

Speaker:      Let the record show the minister has withdrawn it.

Mr. Jenkins:      What we see, Mr. Speaker, is this government adopting a modus operandi of pitting the interests of one group against another. The reality is, it’s hurting Yukoners. I have a single mother of two, with hepatitis C, who this minister’s own department has cut off from social assistance because she has received a small inheritance that is locked into an investment fund. She can’t access it. She’s cut off social assistance and there isn’t any way she can access any help or assistance from Positive Lives.

Now, this is close to home. This is the reality of what the minister is dealing with. When is the minister going to address his responsibilities in this area and treat Yukoners in the appropriate manner, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      The Member for Klondike is very famous for bootlegging other questions into the original question. I’ll state categorically that we do not intimidate groups nor individuals. I never have, and I never will.

Now, if the spin of the opposition is to make that the reality, then that’s their spin. It’s not ours. It’s always interesting when you look at the community development fund audit to see who did what for whom. A lot of interference — we don’t do that.

Mr. Speaker, we are interested in resolving problems, coming to solutions, and delivering programs. If groups out in the community can’t get their acts together to work together, that’s something they have to resolve. I cannot play referee on everything that happens in the community. All I can do is challenge groups to pull their resources together and try to build for the future. That’s all I can do. I can’t tell them what to do. If they choose to use the media as their way of trying to solve the problems, that’s their choice. This is a democracy. Nobody can tell people what to do and not to do. So the opposition trying to make those kinds of statements because they believe the media — that’s their problem, not mine.

Question re:  Workers’ advocate

Mr. Keenan:      Same minister, Mr. Speaker, different topic. Mr. Speaker, this is going to be the third time I’ve asked this question in this House, and I would certainly like to get no thunder, no lightning, just the facts, please.

I’m asking about the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board. Yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected a motion that was filed by the board’s lawyer that would have prevented the independent workers’ advocate from representing injured workers in court. So I would like to ask the minister now: does the minister agree that the workers’ advocate should have that authority?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, the court has spoken. We’re not challenging the court.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess I’m going to have to go to take-four at some other point in time, but I’m just asking if the minister is going to show some leadership. In the previous three questions, the minister went ahead and attacked NGOs instead of showing leadership. So I’m asking for that. Mr. Speaker, this could be drawn up again. This issue could very well be brought to the courts again and looked at in a court of appeal and a different verdict brought down. So I’m asking the minister, for the sake of clarity, will the minister show some leadership and bring forth a simple legislative amendment to enshrine the authority in the Workers’ Compensation Act this sitting? Will the minister do that this sitting?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      For the record, Mr. Speaker, I’m not attacking NGOs. I just asked two NGOs to try to resolve their differences. That’s not attacking NGOs.

Again, speculation — we are a government that doesn’t believe in speculation. The member opposite is saying, well, this might come down, this might happen. Mr. Speaker, we will operate in the way that is in the best interests of Yukoners. We’re not interested in speculation at this point.

Mr. Keenan:      Yes, the question has already been brought forth. They don’t believe in speculation, yet their whole economic agenda is based on speculation. My goodness, Mr. Speaker, we have to get a little bit of the facts on the table here.

I’d like to get back to the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board. The possibility is there. It’s not a question about doing homework; it’s about the evolution of legislation, and it will come up again. I’m asking the minister again if he will bring in a simple amendment this sitting so that we will put it to bed. Will the minister, in the interim, please direct the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board not to bring forth any more cases like this until it is clarified through the act? Will the minister do that and quit with the waffling?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Well, this being a court case, we can’t comment on court cases. The court has made its decision, and we’re following it.

Question re:   Watson Lake, health care needs

Mr. Fentie:      My question is for the same minister, the Minister of Health and Social Services. Recently, the minister made a trip to my community, Watson Lake, and it was very evident that the minister was down probably getting himself up to speed on the health needs of the community. However, the minister failed to meet with the good doctor of Watson Lake, who has serviced that community for some quarter of a century. Can the minister explain why he snubbed the doctor and did not even sit down and discuss the health needs of the community with the doctor?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Yes, I think the Member for Watson Lake is correct. I did not meet with the doctor, although I did go to the doctor’s office to see if we could arrange a meeting. Obviously, there wasn’t time, and I said the next time I am there I’ll definitely make a point of meeting with him. I don’t deny the fact that I didn’t meet with him, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully the next time I will.

Mr. Fentie:      I’m glad to hear that because this minister, whose government’s commitment is to maintain quality health care, should have made that his first stop. This is a doctor who has provided services for the needs of people in the community for almost a quarter of a century. He well knows the health needs of the people in that community. So I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this minister simply didn’t want to discuss those needs with the doctor and, furthermore, when it comes to recruiting doctors, this minister should well have talked to Dr. Said who, on his own, actively recruits doctors.

Will this minister now commit to reschedule a trip to Watson Lake as quickly as possible so that he can sit down and discuss these things with Dr. Secerbegovic?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I already made my point that I didn’t meet the doctor. I did go to his office, but he wasn’t available, Mr. Speaker. I will, in the future, ensure that I do meet with the doctor.

The important part about this whole issue — the side opposite are so good at intimidation. They are the masters of intimidation. The CDF audit tells you very clearly what has happened in the past. We don’t intimidate, Mr. Speaker. We work with Yukoners.

Mr. Fentie:      I can tell you that the doctor was quite taken aback that this minister did not schedule, up front, a meeting with him — a doctor who knows intimately the health needs of a community. And that’s not the question I asked.

Will the minister now reschedule a trip to Watson Lake to sit down with the doctor? And the minister may very well get some good advice on how to recruit doctors to this territory, because the doctor in Watson Lake is doing so now, without any help or assistance from this minister and his department.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      In Watson Lake, I met with a variety of groups. I met with the nurses for a good part of the morning; I met with the social council that they have there, for another couple of hours at lunch hour. I met with the First Nations. I went to the doctor’s office, as I have said in three previous turns, and the doctor wasn’t available. I have said that when I go back to Watson Lake, I will definitely try to meet with the doctor but, again, it’s a two-way street, Mr. Speaker. I definitely will try to make sure that I can meet with all the health care people in the Watson Lake area. I try that in every community, Mr. Speaker, and it just didn’t work out this time.

Question re:  Whistle-blower legislation

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I appreciate that commitment from the minister, and look forward to his next trip. Hopefully, it’s soon.

My question is for the minister responsible for the Public Service Alliance. We have witnessed here today the Minister of Health’s view that muzzling the public is the way to conduct government’s business. That brings to mind part of the public — the public servants — who are quite concerned and nervous about this fact that the Minister of Health displays. This minister responsible for the Public Service Commission has committed to bring forward whistle-blower legislation. Where is that legislation at this time?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, we do always get helpful suggestions from the Member for Klondike when he’s not on mike, and we do try and address his questions respectfully.

We are still currently looking at the whistle-blower legislation, and we are examining options that are used, or being considered, in other locations in Canada, and also in the United States, because it’s a very controversial issue and does have to be handled in the most appropriate way so that there isn’t abuse, instead of usefulness, to that legislation.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, the situation is becoming more critical. The Minister of Health is now trying to silence NGOs; the public service is quite concerned that that same treatment may befall them.

The minister committed in the last sitting to try and bring legislation forward this spring. So far we have seen nothing. His answer now looks more and more like this may be one of those pieces of legislation that just falls off the end of the earth, and they get to the end of their term and nothing happens.

Can the minister, given the circumstances, commit to a timeline for this legislation to come forward to this House?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I am just chuckling to myself, because I know that we are definitely not the masters of flip-flop. I mean, the members opposite have taken that title long, long ago.

I am sure that, in attempting to respond, in light of the indiscretion that he is trying to ascribe to the Minister of Health and Social Services, it isn’t really quite appropriate — asking the question relative to what I am attempting to answer in a responsible way.

So, I would express to the Member for Watson Lake that it isn’t an easy issue. I am sure that they looked at the same kinds of issues when they were on this side of the House. It is a very controversial piece of legislation and concept and it definitely warrants the time that we are taking to look at it, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I asked for a timeline. None was given. But the flip-flop is actually on that side of the House, the Liberal government’s side of the House. That’s where the flip-flop is.

This minister committed to this legislation. They committed to this legislation in their campaign. While in opposition, all the Liberal members were strong proponents of bringing forward this legislation. They didn’t seem to think it was that hard then. Why won’t this minister commit now to a timeline to bring forward that legislation, so that public servants who choose to come forward with indiscretions of the government can do so without fear of a witch-hunt?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Speaking of indiscretions, I won’t go into the details of the community development fund or the intimidation that elected officials imparted on that platter, giving to their friends and working on that. I won’t go there, because we are attempting every which way to improve the conduct in this House. So I think that they can certainly take a look in the mirror at the aspects of intimidation when it came to all those applications that came forward in the community development fund and how much it has improved after we got hold of it. We’ll look after it appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, they know full well that we are attempting every which way to instill confidence in government, and we are empowering the public service. We will continue to look at avenues that will allow us to create this whistle-blowing legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:  Good afternoon everyone. I now call the 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.

Recess

Chair:  I now call Committee of the Whole to order. We’ll continue with general debate on Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 2001-02.

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

Mr. McRobb:      I’d like to start by following up on some discussion yesterday about the budget figures regarding surplus, in relation to the Premier’s math that the surplus at the end of the coming year would be $6 million. Has the Acting Premier had an opportunity to review those figures and consider what effect the lapses for the coming year would have on that figure, and can he provide for us some clarity on what he sees as the surplus for the end of the coming year?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I have become somewhat familiar with this and hope I can adequately answer for the Premier.

As the member opposite had indicated, the expected surplus for the next fiscal year, at the end of the next fiscal year, will be $6 million. It’s usually historic that the lapses will be in the range of $10 million to $15 million.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Chair, is the Acting Premier saying, then, that we should add those two figures together, $15 million and $6 million, and arrive at a surplus for the coming year of $21 million? Is that what he’s saying?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I would certainly advise the member opposite to refer to the long-term plan, but we’re looking — yes, you can add those figures. We’re looking at around $23 million.

Mr. McRobb:      That’s different than what the Premier’s math concluded, yet the Premier suggested to our leader that he should brush up on his math when he suggested that the surplus, in fact, is much higher than $6 million.

There’s something inconsistent here, Mr. Chair. Either it’s the Premier that needs to brush up on her math or the minister, the Acting Premier, has brushed up on his math, because we’re getting a completely different figure now.

The Acting Premier refers to the long-term plan, which is one page in a section in the budget speech. That long-term plan shows a projected actual surplus at the end of the current year of some $45 million. That point in time is only a couple of weeks away.

So, would the Acting Premier confirm that, in a couple of weeks, this government will have a surplus for the current year of some $45 million?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Chair, it’s estimated at this particular time that, yes, there will be an accumulated surplus of $45 million.

Mr. McRobb:      Will the Acting Premier also confirm that the same figure for an accumulated surplus at the end of the next fiscal year is projected to actually be $23 million?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, that is correct, but it’s also very important to remember that that includes lapses and revotes.

Mr. McRobb:      That’s fine, Mr. Chair. The Acting Premier is merely identifying some of the components in the equation that lead to the conclusion there will be a surplus at the end of the coming fiscal year of some $23 million. We can accept that there are components to the equation.

The other component, of course, was identified in the previous question and, in fact, the surplus at the end of the current fiscal year is some $45 million.

On to that, we have $15 million in lapses, we have $13 million in revotes, and a $24-million deficit — all components of the equation that lead to the conclusion of a surplus of $23 million at the end of the coming year.

That is considerably higher than the $6 million that the Premier would have us believe. Just for clarity, I would refer people to Hansard from March 7, and the final question of the day, from Mr. Fairclough, leader of the official opposition, to Premier Duncan for that information.

Now, there will be considerable debate around these numbers and about this budget in the coming weeks in this Legislature, and perhaps even more on that topic this afternoon. But right now, I would like to pick up where we left off in questioning on Tuesday afternoon when I was asking the Premier some questions in the energy area. First, it was on the Alaska Highway pipeline proposal and, second, we began to delve into the area of the Yukon government and its Crown-owned utility company, the Yukon Energy Corporation, as well as the Yukon Development Corporation. These matters really span across several departments in this government. I will leave it to the Acting Premier as to whom he would like to call on to assist him in responding to these questions.

I would like to start with a question on the rate stabilization fund, because this is a matter of great concern to Yukoners. We know this fund was set up a couple of years ago, after a significant public consultation. I was part of that process. It was quite an extensive public consultation, involving dozens of stakeholders in the energy field, from industry, conservation and consumer fields of interest. Several discussion papers were produced, leading up to the final process.

Now, Mr. Chair, the rate stabilization fund has been the target of several questions in this Legislature, and it has also been spoken about by all the parties during campaign platform discussions. Can the Acting Premier refresh us on what his government’s position is on maintaining the rate stabilization fund in the future?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate the question from the Member for Kluane, and I unfortunately would have to provide either a written response to that question or wait the return of my colleague, the minister responsible, and have him answer that question.

Mr. McRobb:      Okay. I’ll take an answer from the minister responsible. That’s fine.

Mr. Chair, I’m assuming that the Acting Premier can acknowledge my taking up his offer that the relevant minister, the Member for Porter Creek North, can respond to the question. I’m prepared to hear his response.

Chair:  Is there any further debate? Mr. McRobb.

Mr. McRobb:      All right, Mr. Chair. The Acting Premier and I have sorted out this communication roadblock, and we can take this matter up a little later. Can the minister maybe provide for us some indication of whether Cabinet has discussed the matter of the rate stabilization fund yet?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I do believe it would be most appropriate if these questions and the details of these questions were asked of the appropriate minister.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, unfortunately I feel as if I’m taking the burden of responsibility for, let’s just say, a shortage of personnel capable of responding to these questions. It was no secret that I would continue with these questions. That’s where we left off two days ago, and I would have hoped that the number of bright individuals on that side of the House would have got it together.

Speaking of brightness, Mr. Chair, in terms of energy, maybe we can return to that area at this time and let me ask the minister responsible for Yukon Energy Corporation and Yukon Development Corporation what his government’s position is on the rate stabilization fund.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, obviously we know the date is coming. We have another year — just short of a year, I guess — to draw down what’s already in there. We obviously have to address what we’re going to do in the future. My suggestion would be that we’re going to need all the resources of Yukoners to come up with some very creative ways of how we’re going to solve this problem in the future.

To say that I have an instant answer at this point — as you know, I’ve been in the position for two weeks, and I’m doing my best to bring myself up to speed on the whole issue, but I know that it is a concern. I know that it is an issue. I know it’s something that we have to respond to, and we’re going to need all our resources, as I said to you earlier, to come up with the long term, because that’s what Yukoners want.

Mr. McRobb:      We all know that the minister across the way would like to assign all of his responsibilities to boards and committees, but there comes a time in his term when he’s expected to show some responsibility, as well.

This, again, Mr. Chair, is a very important program for many Yukoners who receive the credit on their power bill called the rate stabilization fund. I would draw the minister’s attention to an undertaking that was determined out of the public consultation process that I referred to earlier — that this program would be reviewed in consultation with Yukon stakeholders this spring.

Mr. Chair, spring is nigh — calendar-wise, it’s only a week or so away. Weather-wise, it’s probably been here a little while. The sun was quite nice today; the snow is melting.

Mr. Chair, to show some respect for stakeholders — and I know that the minister likes to explain how much respect he has for stakeholders — we would assume that the government would be providing some information to stakeholders in calling for some indication of their interest in the process to review the rate stabilization fund, and also provide them with some information in terms of how much money is available, and so on. Maybe he could ask them when they might be available to get together for some of the process that, I would guess, would lead to a workshop — possibly a one- or two-day workshop on the matter.

It strikes me that this is all Greek to the minister. I don’t want him to misinterpret me and confuse this as an invitation for him to travel abroad again, because I think that there are several matters here in the Yukon that require his attention. One of them is this rate stabilization fund. We need to get this hammered out. The message to all Yukoners was that it is going to get hammered out this spring, because the policy ends in one year. Now, the latest accounting estimate for this fund, I believe, was a projected surplus of about a million dollars and that figure, I think, is getting a little stale now. Let me ask the minister what the latest, refreshed figure is for the balance in the rate stabilization fund at its projected expiry in one year’s time.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I do not have that information before me but I will make sure that the member opposite gets a copy.

Mr. McRobb:      All right, Mr. Chair, I can pick up on that type of response and maybe I can feed a few more requests in at this time. Can the minister also provide information that indicates how much is available from the Yukon Energy Corporation and Yukon Development Corporation to fund the rate stabilization fund on an annual basis in the coming years? Can he indicate when the Yukon government is planning to hold this review and how it will go about it? For example, what kind of process does it envision?

Who will lead the process? Will it be Yukon Energy Corporation, Yukon Development Corporation, the Department of Economic Development or the Premier’s office? Who will lead this process? What will be available in terms of information? Will there be discussion papers developed on it? Just what will stakeholders expect as part of this review?

Mr. Chair, something I alluded to fairly recently that I would also like some information on was the recent automatic mechanism contained within the program that absorbed a hike in power rates in December, because we know that that automatic mechanism was part of the program established by the previous government, and what it did, as far as I understand at this point, was absorb an increase in the price of fuel.

Now, Mr. Chair, many of us familiar with the power system in the Yukon understand that there is very little fuel being used on the main grid system, because we’re in a hydro surplus situation, and if not for those very cold days at peak hours of the day — perhaps the supper hour, for one — there would be virtually no need for any diesel generation in the Yukon communities of Whitehorse, Haines Junction, Teslin, Carmacks, Faro, Carcross, and so on; all communities connected to the grid.

But the other communities that are isolated, such as Dawson, Watson Lake, Beaver Creek, Destruction Bay, Burwash Landing and so on, burn diesel fuel to generate electricity. Those are the communities that are exposed to fuel price increases. So in terms of total generation, the cumulative total of those isolated communities might amount to about 10 percent of the total consumption on an annual basis in the territory. It does amount to something noticeable in terms of expenditures when there is a sudden and sharp increase in the price of fuel, such as is being experienced.

What I would like from the minister is some information about that fuel price increase, if indeed that’s what it was that the RSF covered, how much it was, how long it’s intended to be in force, and so on.

I would also like the minister to provide some information about what power rates would look like across the territory if the RSF were dismantled or discontinued. Let’s not kid ourselves, Mr. Chair, there are those in the territory who would like to see the discontinuation of this subsidy program.

So, if the minister can provide that information on the rate stabilization fund, I’d be pleased to receive it.

Moving on now to this new program announced by the Liberal government, called the renewable power sales incentive program — I see the minister nodding his head. I would like to know when this program is anticipated to be launched and how much would it cost to run the program?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, we seem to be into a line by line of YDC and YEC. Those are good questions and I’m more than willing to answer them. The obvious is that we’ll definitely make sure that we’ll get you all the information. I don’t have all the facts before me.

As far as the last question you asked, that will be soon responded to and you will be more than pleased — I’ll retract that, Mr. Chair. The member opposite will be receiving information, as the Yukon public will be receiving information, on the specifics of how that program works and where we are going to go with that program.

Mr. McRobb:      I’m a little disappointed in that, Mr. Chair, because this is the Legislature; this program was announced in the Premier’s budget speech, and I’m merely asking for some idea about how this program might work, when it might be launched, how much it will cost. This is basic information that should be available now and should have been available probably months ago when this program was in the design stage.

Otherwise, it never would have made its way into the budget speech without its cost being known, Mr. Chair. We know this government likes to pride itself on building a business case for these types of things, and I would feel it fair to assume that the cost of this program would have been identified at that time.

I would like to know, specifically in terms of this program, how this government plans to satisfy the clause in the NCPC transfer agreement — which is still a relevant agreement today — with the federal government, in terms of what I believe is called the indemnity clause. It’s that clause, Mr. Chair, if I could just expand for a moment on it to avoid any confusion. It’s that clause that allows us to collect a rebate on a term note with the federal government each year, provided power sales are below a certain threshold.

The conundrum here, Mr. Chair, in terms of a program like the renewable power sales incentive program, is simple. If we sell electricity at a cheap rate, or even give it away, that increases the total number of gigawatt hours generated on the system, breaks through the threshold of the transfer agreement, and decreases the amount of forgiveness we pay Ottawa.

Now, I look across the floor and I see some blank looks over there. I’ll be the first to admit that this discussion is getting fairly technical, but I will also understand when the minister offers to get back with this information. I’ll accept that.

The information that I would like to know is how this program would work in the context of that repayment schedule with Ottawa. And what is the purpose of this program? Is there a maximum amount of electricity that could be sold under this program? Any information that the minister could get back would be appreciated.

As well, Mr. Chair, if there is some recent correspondence in the last year or so between the federal government and this government, or any entity thereof, regarding that matter, I would appreciate it if the minister could undertake to provide that as well. Would the minister oblige these information requests?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      The member opposite knows a lot about electricity, and I don’t know if this is a demonstration of how much the member opposite knows. This is a line-by-line discussion, and I would suggest that the member opposite leave it until we move into the actual line-by-line debate. We will have answers. I am more than willing to give the member opposite all the answers he wants. Hopefully, rather than wasting the time that we have now, in general debate, it is important that we try to address the issues that are more pertinent to the general category versus the individual ones. It’s not that we are trying to move out of it, it’s just that it would be a better use of our time. Right now, I don’t see the relevance of discussing, at this point in time, all these agreements, these negotiations and the projection of where we are going when we are in general debate. I will be more than pleased to answer them when those items come up during debate and I will have all the answers for the member opposite.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Chair, I take that as a no in response to my information request. And if I didn’t understand that correctly, the minister, when he returns to his feet, can maybe clarify that.

But I would like to point out that this discussion at this time is not line-by-line, as that minister would like us to believe. This Committee is still in general debate on the budget.

Mr. Chair, this is broad discussion of virtually any topic, and there’s good reason to discuss these matters at this time, Mr Chair. I would have expected the minister to be aware of these arguments that were put on the record Tuesday afternoon. Unfortunately, it appears he’s not.

Now, I could understand that the minister’s embarrassed with his lack of knowledge in this area, but I would have expected him to get over that by now. He has been in government almost a year, and there have been plenty of examples. Now, Mr. Chair, there is a real case to have this information brought out now, and there is all the good reason to have this information provided to us in the very near future.

What the minister is suggesting is that we let this slip through general debate, which would allow for less scrutiny in this area, and push it all into the discussion of Yukon Development Corporation when we get to it in the budget debate. That line item is $1.00. As I pointed out the other day, Mr. Chair, it’s common for that department to be passed in this Legislature within about five minutes. Five minutes is common for that department to be passed, and for good reason, because by the time it comes up, we’re under significant time pressure to get things wrapped up.

I recall about one time at about this stage in the mandate of the previous government, when this department came up in Committee, it was late in the evening in an all-night sitting that ended 6:30 a.m. the next day. Well, Mr. Chair, we currently have no agreement and no memorandum of understanding setting out limitations of when this sitting will end.

It could be very likely that we end up in a similar situation. Well, Mr. Chair, here’s what I conclude out of that. The minister responsible for the Crown utilities wants to deny us the opportunity to ask some questions about issues that are very important to Yukoners at this time. He wants to push us back to that other opportunity where there are great time pressures and very reduced opportunity for discussion.

Mr. Chair, this is a government that claims it’s open and accountable. Perhaps this is yet one more example of how we see it’s not.

Now, Mr. Chair, if the government members would spend less time passing around cartoons and notes and maybe more time becoming familiar with their briefing notes —

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

Point of order

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

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Chair, the member opposite is being abusive and insulting. The members on this side are not passing around cartoons, and I’d like to set that record straight.

Thank you.

Chair’s ruling

Chair:  Before we have any further discussion, there’s no point of order. You may proceed, Mr. McRobb.

Mr. McRobb:      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It seems we’re picking up on these frivolous points of order where we left off yesterday afternoon, and I was hoping we wouldn’t be doing that.

Now, before moving off this topic, I think the point has been made about several things, but before moving on, I want to state the importance of this program to Yukoners. I want to just put on record my views. I think this program deserves some open discussion, on the record, at this time, and I don’t think it should be pushed to the back burner where it might not get discussed at all, Mr. Chair.

I’ll take that position. I won’t have any problem taking that position at all, because I know how important this matter is to Yukoners. Just because the minister and the Acting Premier have very little information about this very important program with him today, there’s no need to push it to the back burner. These matters are very important, and I want to exercise my democratic right, as a member of this Assembly, to ask these types of questions in general debate and, in all fairness, I expect responsible answers.

If the members opposite don’t have the answers, for whatever reason, I’ll take written responses, but I would prefer those responses in the near future and not six or seven weeks from now, when we skip by Yukon Energy Corporation and Yukon Development Corporation in the budget.

Because, Mr. Chair, as I pointed out earlier, the review of the rate stabilization fund is something that was supposed to start this spring. We’re very close to that now, and there have been no signals from this government that it even acknowledges that this review is to take place — nothing.

Now, I do have a couple of other questions in this area. The commercial energy management program was also mentioned in the budget speech. Can the Acting Premier, or the minister, provide some information about what the uptake was last year, and the cost, and what the forecasts are for the coming year?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      The member opposite is great at showing how much knowledge the member has about certain issues, and that’s good. That can be very helpful if it’s provided in a very positive way. Sometimes, Mr. Chair, I’m not sure that is the intent. I hope it is.

We as ministers, we as government, don’t have all the answers to all the questions. We never said that we had at the beginning, and we still say we don’t. That’s what briefings are for. The technical briefings are for the experts to provide the answers, and I think it is very important that these briefings are attended by members opposite, so that there is a good understanding of what your questions will be and what the answers will be.

I have never pretended to have all the answers, and, Mr. Chair, I will always attempt to get the answer — that is really my goal. This is an arm’s-length committee that works at an arm’s-length distance from myself. It’s a duly appointed board that has responsibilities under the act. They make decisions and implement decisions. We, as the government responsible, have to answer for those decisions.

Leadership comes from many ways — it’s not just the one-way approach here. We use the leadership of Yukoners, we use the leadership of, hopefully, government, and we try to arrive at the right decisions for all Yukoners.

The rate stabilization plan was a good plan when it was put in place. Obviously, we have a year left in order to assess where we want to go with this in the future. We, as the government, will do what we have to do to ensure that we provide security for all Yukoners. We are not going to skip away. For the member opposite to make those kind of, almost — I am not sure what the term or the word is, but almost to suggest that we weren’t going to address it — to me, this is not the way we should go. We want to respond to what Yukoners need.

I appreciate the members opposite raising the issues. I don’t pretend to have all the answers at this point, but I will make sure that the member receives the answers. If we attend all the technical briefings, I’m sure there will be many more answers there for the member opposite.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, I must object to this type of relegation suggested by the minister. The minister is once again evading his responsibility and trying to diminish his accountability to Yukoners by redirecting our questions toward personnel from a department in a corporation in a briefing meeting.

The minister assumes that what we’re after is solely information in these topic areas. Mr. Chair, the minister couldn’t be more wrong. One of the most important things we are after and try to seek is commitment from the government and indications of where the government is going, their political direction and so on. These issues are never discussed in briefing sessions. It’s highly inappropriate for them to be discussed there — highly inappropriate.

For the minister to suggest that and stand up — and he’s done that more than once, Mr. Chair. I recall those same messages coming from the same minister in the past week. For him to suggest we should direct all our concerns to those briefing sessions and ask questions of the personnel really misses the mark. He is the minister. The Acting Premier is first in command here today, and we’re in general debate. This is the only opportunity I see to bring forward these types of questions, Mr. Chair. Because of the lack of ability of this government to respond to these questions, I’m being forced to settle for something less than could be reasonably expected. For the minister to try to relegate us to seek answers that are expected of him from personnel makes it even worse.

The members opposite acknowledge that part of our role is to hold the government accountable. Mr. Chair, part of our job is not holding personnel accountable. I wish the members opposite would make that distinction. If we’re provided information in a briefing session that later turns out to be incorrect, we don’t, at some future point, come in here and identify that person and ask the relevant ministers questions about why that particular person gave us information that is not accurate. We don’t do that. That’s what being in government is all about.

The ministers are the people responsible for the relevant departments. I acknowledge we’re getting into politics 101 here, but it seems that we have to go to some foundation in order to get back on the right road, because it’s these ministers, Mr. Chair, whom we expect to answer questions. For instance, it goes beyond that. The information the minister undertook to provide me, I expect to be signed off by the minister so that, in the future, if we so choose to take issue with any of those matters, we direct it to the minister, to hold him accountable. We don’t expect to have to do that to any personnel working for this government because that would be inappropriate.

Mr. Chair, it all comes with the job. I would have hoped the members opposite would have realized that by now. It’s their job to take responsibility.

We don’t call members of a board in here and grill them for some decision they may or may not have taken, because we’re hearing all the time — especially in regard to this minister — that he gives direction to groups and individuals in the public not to speak out. We never know what kind of direction this minister is giving the boards and committees, or organizations, in the Yukon. We now know his real views on some of those organizations from his responses earlier today. As far as the chain of accountability goes, we just try to do the best we can on this side of the House, because trying to ascertain all the information in the chain of direction and command and responsibility would be too exhaustive a job for anyone in this House.

We never know what happens in the backroom of the government, Mr. Chair, or in the hallways, or the parking lots, or what’s said between the ministers and these boards and other Yukoners. We know that several stories have surfaced recently about people being warned and muzzled, people who feel their rights and freedom of speech have been suppressed. Mr. Chair, I would say that a reasonable conclusion would be that any such action can be deemed undemocratic.

Now, something else that can fall in that same category is lack of accountability, because we live in a democratic society and, in the Yukon, the political system is highly accountable.

If the minister evades his accountability and his responsibilities, then that will degrade the level of democracy that we have in this territory. Now, I don’t recall the Liberals making that a platform commitment, that they were going to degrade democracy in the Yukon. Already, in less than a year, Mr. Chair, it appears that is what we have got. And maybe those people surveyed by DataPath Systems in the results of the survey yesterday have already picked up on that. They’ve already picked up that these ministers and this government are not as accountable as they were lead to believe. They are not doing what they said they would do.

There are several things that this government promised it would do that it hasn’t done. There are other things that it has done that it never said it would do. It seems that this government will continue this willy-nilly approach and do whatever it pleases.

Now, in regard to the review of the rate stabilization fund, I would hope that the discussion today will prompt the government into remembering this matter, getting on with it and showing some respect to Yukon stakeholders.

Mr. Chair, there are several matters that I would like to pursue from the Yukon government implementation plan for the final report of the Cabinet Commission on Energy, dated November 1998.

I’m just wondering if this government is capable of answering some of these questions. The first question: what is the government doing about recommendation number 1, which says, "Yukoners should move away from electric heating systems as the primary source of heating"?

Now, Mr. Chair, that’s a pretty simple question. We’ve seen it surface recently with regard to promises that were made by this government. Can we get an answer to that question, please?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      The member opposite is wonderful at wandering all over the map when it comes to asking a question. He brings up integrity; he brings up truthfulness.

Withdrawal of remark

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Not "truthfulness", Mr. Chair. I will withdraw that.

He brings up what I said, what I didn’t say, what has been put in my mouth. The relevance should be to the issue. If the member opposite is talking about energy, then let’s stick to energy. I’ve already advised the member opposite that I’m more than willing to have answers to his questions. We’ve also offered technical situations where he can listen to the experts. I’m not asking the experts to decide policy, but the member opposite is asking technical questions. And if you want to ask technical questions, then you have to have the answers from the people who are on the front lines, Mr. Chair. The important part here is that it’s very good to show one’s knowledge of the subject. I think that’s very important. We encourage that kind of knowledge to help seek out solutions. We want solutions to problems. The objective should not always be to embarrass the government or embarrass the minister; it should be to look at relevant directions in which we can go.

So, I question quite often, Mr. Chair, the motivation for discussing specific line items that could be more than easily done when the department comes up in general debate.

These are specific questions. The member opposite can say whatever he wishes about the fact that the member has a right to know the answers. I agree. The member does have a right to know the answers, but this is neither the time nor the place to do it, at this point in time. That will come in the line discussion.

I think it’s very important, Mr. Chair, also to understand that, as a government, we work with all Yukoners. We’re not interested in working with a select group. We know full well what happens when you work with a select group. An audit comes up with CDF, pointing out what happens when you work with a select group.

I think it’s very important that we be open and transparent. That’s what Yukoners want. That’s why Yukoners made their decision to have something different, and we are delivering. If you want to believe in Yukoners, then you have to trust Yukoners. It’s not a matter of trying to put images in the heads of Yukoners that are not necessarily the appropriate images, and we, as a government, are always going to present the right images, because we are long-term Yukoners and want the best for Yukon.

Mr. McRobb:      Thank you for that high and mighty speech, Mr. Chair, but the minister is wrong again. This is general debate.

Now, let’s just assume for a moment — let’s take his argument and let’s assume he’s right. Let’s assume that matters that pertain to particular departments should be funnelled into the line-by-line discussion of those particular departments. What, then, would be the purpose of general debate? You can cut up any question and funnel it into the relevant department. There would be no general debate.

Is the member suggesting that we should do away with general debate in scrutinizing the budget? I have some opinions on that, and I’m sure that other members on this side of the House have opinions on that too.

General debate is instrumental in gleaning information at an early stage in the scrutiny of a government’s budget. There are several purposes for doing so. Now, the Acting Premier is becoming impatient across the way and wants me to speed it up. Well, Mr. Chair, I don’t know why he wants it sped up for, because I would wager that general debate will not be cleared today. So, what’s the point? If the Acting Premier wants to speed things up, why doesn’t he ask the minister to provide some information, or undertake to return with some information, rather than hurling insults and trying to convince us that his approach is the right approach.

I think that, in the words just expressed about the importance of general debate, the minister has failed to recognize the importance of discussing issues up front.

For instance, Mr. Chair, there could be a policy question the minister might assume is fairly detailed which, if asked in general debate, could glean information that might apply to one department or more. That issue, then, if followed up on in debate of the particular departments, can be discussed with a higher level of knowledge.

Mr. Chair, that allows us in opposition to prepare. That also allows the ministers to become more aware of the subject matter of which they speak, rather than just undertaking to get back with information on what might be the last day of a spring sitting, which might be midnight or some later time.

Well, Mr. Chair, just to follow up on that, I will give my view of what has happened on that even with this government. Well, about a month after the Legislature adjourns for the summer, one day there will be a letter on our desks regarding answers to questions in budget debate. By that time, it could be July or August. The next sitting of the Legislature is several months away, so the opportunity to question the relevant minister on it and get comments on the record is severely hampered and delayed; therefore, a fresh issue might be a stale issue by the time that opportunity arises.

Back to the need to discuss such matters in general debate — it circumvents that whole delay procedure, cuts to the chase, allows us to get the information prior to the departments coming up in debate. If the members opposite are advocating a position to favour the delay approach and do away with an approach that promotes greater understanding and a higher level of accountability, then they should have said so during the election campaign, rather than fooling Yukoners now.

This government should have levelled with people; they should have said, "We are not going to improve the decorum in the Legislature. What we really mean is that we are going to make our jobs easier and we are going to reduce the level of accountability for which Yukoners can hold us accountable. We are also going to reduce our level of responsibility by creating a number of boards and committees to do our job for us, so these boards and committees make the tough decisions and nobody will then be able to hold the minister responsible because the decisions were made by someone else."

Mr. Chair, if this government were really forthright with Yukoners, that’s what it would have campaigned on, because that’s what we’ve got now.

Mr. Chair, what I’m hearing on the street and what was echoed yesterday in the DataPath poll is that Yukoners can’t wait for the next 30 months to pass, so they can press the eject button on this government and get somebody back in there who can do the job and stand up and take the responsibility to make the tough decisions themselves, instead of panning it off on somebody else, trying to make their jobs easier and reduce their responsibility. That’s disgraceful.

This whole debate could have been avoided had the minister just undertaken to get back some information to me, rather than attempting to indoctrinate me with his views on what the new government should be like, because we know now what the new government, if we can still use that term, really is like, and that’s reduced responsibility and reduced accountability. They want to make their jobs easier. They want to make our jobs tougher.

Mr. Chair, to return to the issue, rather than going through this report item by item, which I think would be very worthy — and I’m sorry if the minister feels embarrassed that his knowledge is insufficient compared to ours in this side. I’m really sorry for the minister. Maybe if he can spend less time dealing with the dogs and cats in his riding, he could spend more time with his advisors and getting brushed up on in his portfolios.

Mr. Chair, what I’m going to suggest is that I would be satisfied if the government would provide me with an update on each of the recommendations in this report and where they’re at. Can the minister do that?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McRobb:      I thank the minister for that quick and easy reply. I did not hear that affirmative response in his previous answer, and I don’t believe I asked the same question in my previous question. So the minister, just to clarify, will be providing me with an update on each one of the recommendations from the November 1998 report, and I look forward to that information in the near future.

Mr. Chair, there are some other issues I want to follow up on, but I’m going to make it short and ask about a couple of constituency-related issues regarding district heating systems. These matters might have surfaced in the government’s budget consultation dog-and-pony show at the end of January, at the last minute, because they certainly surfaced when I made the rounds in the communities the following week, following up on what the government did or did not do.

There is information within government on a couple of projects. One of them is the district heating system in Beaver Creek. Just to outline for the members, the purpose of this system would be to utilize waste heat from the diesel generator in that community and pipe that heat through a distribution system to several buildings in that community to displace the burning of fossil fuels. We know that this is important, Mr. Chair, for several reasons: reducing greenhouse gas production; reducing exposure to volatile prices of foreign fuels; to promote local control and ownership of energy systems; and to take advantage of energy that is currently wasted.

Mr. Chair, thanks to the foresight of the Yukon Electrical Company Limited, I understand that the manifold on the generator, when it was replaced a few years ago, was replaced with a manifold that was adaptable to such a district heating system; therefore, the cost of connection is greatly reduced.

Now, we know there’s money available from the federal government for projects like this. We know there was a study done in the community in 1985, I believe it was. Mr. Chair, I would like to know if the government has had any discussions about such a project, and what it plans to do.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I would be more than willing to get an answer directly to the member opposite on that question, in writing.

Mr. McRobb:      I thank the minister for that. The second matter was district heating system at the Dakwakada Forest Products mill in Haines Junction. Can the minister provide me with the same information in regard to that project, please?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes.

Ms. Netro:      I have a few comments and some questions for the Acting Premier. It has been almost a year now that you’ve been in government, and much of that time has caused uncertainty in the Yukon. I heard over and over again, during that time, that you have made commitments.

Chair:  Just a reminder to members not to refer to the government as "you". So, continue please, Ms. Netro.

Ms. Netro:      Thanks for the reminder.

It was during that time that I have heard, over and over again, the commitments that were made to the people of the Yukon. And, over and over again, I realize that some of the commitments have not been met. While I appreciate the funding that was set aside for my community of Old Crow, much of those priorities that were mentioned over time have not been met.

Many of the ministers have met us in our community in the past year. We welcome the visitors to our community of Old Crow.

I just want to give you a little bit of information about my community, for those who have not had the privilege to visit Old Crow. The community has approximately 300 people living there. Most of our people are of the Gwitchin Nation. The non-First Nation people who live in our community are resource people from outside, such as the RCMP, the nursing staff at the nursing station, the teachers and some of our resource people who work in our First Nation office.

As I mentioned before, we appreciate the funding that was set aside for the community and yet, out of the $538 million budget, there was only $126,000 set aside for Old Crow. I feel that that is not enough, especially when we have placed our priorities before the interested party, time and time again, on the visits to my community.

While we try to address our community’s concerns of today, we always have a long-term vision. Even though we are one of the communities that is the farthest north and the most isolated in the Yukon, we have good communication with people on the outside, and we try to make sure that our voices are heard loud and clear, not only from the leadership of Old Crow, but from community members as a whole.

The community of Old Crow is situated on the Porcupine River, and the community is spread over a small area. We have two subdivisions in Old Crow. As you can well imagine, those subdivisions are a fair distance from downtown Old Crow, where all the main activity happens. In those subdivisions, we have elders living there; we have young families living in those places. One subdivision is situated on the other side of the airport. The only way you can reach that subdivision is by a road that goes around the airport. They do have access to electricity in that small subdivision, and the only way that they have connection to the community by phone is at their own expense. They purchase or rent one of the — I’m not too familiar with the technical term for it. I believe it’s the M-SAT telephones, and it’s at a great cost to the families that have to have these services. I believe they pay about $1,000 per month for these phones, just so that they can feel safe in that area.

I’m bringing this issue up, because, during the budget tour that came to my community, the issue of the fire truck was voiced at both the meeting with the chief and council and at the public meeting that I was at.

We have one of the most ancient fire trucks, I believe, in the Yukon and it would probably do better in the museum, when we have one. It does not give us the kind of service that we would need, especially for safety concerns. I bring this to you again as one of the issues that is of concern to Old Crow and I would like to find out if, in your long-term plan, there are some dollars and funding set aside to help us with that very serious matter.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      With all due respect for the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, I have spent a fair amount of time up on the Old Crow Flats on the North Slope. It is one of the most beautiful parts of the Yukon, of the country. I have spent time in the community, probably more frequently of late in the last 10 months than I have over the past 15 years.

The long-term capital plan will be released with the capital budget later this year, and I believe the Premier has already committed to that.

The fact that the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin has identified a single amount of $126,000 is a bit misleading and, with her permission, I would like to just elaborate on that a little bit.

That is a specific to the up-and-coming fiscal year, Mr. Chair, out of a $536-million budget for capital requests that were directly the result of budget meetings that did occur in the community of Old Crow.

The fact, though, Mr. Chair, is that this is a specific and identified capital project, and I’ll just, for the members opposite’s benefit, identify those capital projects. There was $50,000 for riverbank erosion protection; $15,000 for Rampart House; $25,000 for industry research and strategic planning; $5,000 for operational equipment; land use planning initiatives, another $20,000; Fishing Branch ecological reserve, $5,000; and renovation and rehabilitation of staff housing, $6,000.

This in no way reflects on other departmental O&M expenditures, for instance. The community will be getting additional funds by way of the RCMP up there and funds toward the maintenance and operation of the schools, staff salaries of government employees up there, health care needs directed to the community, and what it needs. These things, of course, all add up to a substantial amount, which, throughout all the communities in the territory, will result in a $536-million expenditure by fiscal year-end.

So, I know that, during the budget visits in the communities, we did hear a lot of suggestions or recommendations for both capital projects and for O&M expenditures. With a limited amount of money of $536 million spread throughout the territory, it was the concerted effort of this government to ask the communities to prioritize their needs and wishes, so that the allotment out of the budget could be distributed fairly and equitably and address those priorities that the communities themselves identified for this year.

That doesn’t mean, though, that the budget planning process stops there. We will continue to listen to communities’ wishes and needs and start planning for the next budget. Just because we finished one process doesn’t mean that we don’t get into the next. Also, with the release of the capital budget this coming fall, we will be revealing our long-range plan for capital as well. So, we are listening. We do appreciate the constructive criticism from the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin and we will keep working cooperatively with the community and the chief and council up there. We will certainly keep account of those items that they feel will best serve the needs of their community.

Ms. Netro:      I appreciate that information and I do agree with the member opposite that Old Crow is one of the most beautiful places in Canada. I also agree with the member opposite regarding some of the programs that he has touched on or mentioned, such as educational needs and health. One of the issues, again, that was voiced at the meeting in Old Crow was in the area of education. At that time, it was fresh in everybody’s minds because we just had the Education Act review meeting in Old Crow. The people who were on that tour visited our community. I have always said in this House and I will say it again. Education is one of the most important priorities in our communities throughout the Yukon and especially for our First Nation students who need access to quality education, because it will help them to get those certificates and those diplomas so they can come back to our First Nation administration offices to apply their trades.

One of the issues that was raised again was in the area of two positions that we needed for our school, and one of them was in the area of a special needs teacher. And in that area of special needs, we don’t only address a person who has a learning disability but that also falls into another department, which is Health and Social Services, where our concerns lie around the FAS/FAE issues — in the area of prevention and information for the children, for the teenagers, and for the families that come in and meet with the teachers. These are some of the serious issues that they do need to address.

I had asked a question before in the House, and I will ask it again. We need access to some of those dollars that are set aside for FAS/FAE. Also, in the area of education, we need access to dollars so that we can provide some of the services that the community is asking for.

So my question to the minister today: will my community have access to those types of funds that are available for the issues that I just mentioned?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, one thing that this government is working very, very hard at is intergovernmental cooperation. We do recognize — I do believe my colleague, the Minister of Health and Social Services, has indicated that there hasn’t always been latitude offered or there hasn’t been provision or direction provided to departments to work laterally on issues, problems and solutions.

I do hear what the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin is saying with respect to needs assessments of students in the schools, of dealing with FAS/FAE. I have talked frequently with the Department of Education, along with Social Services, working on cooperative partnering program initiatives where we can be assisting through our schools.

As a matter of fact, in a number of schools that I have already visited, this is a growing problem. Talking to the teachers, when I have been able to over the last several months, the demands on time and diversity in our education system have exploded to where the diversity of students that we do have in our schools now is what I talked about earlier today. There are literacy problems and learning deficits in one way, shape or form, whether it’s through FAS/FAE or some other limitation that is part of the student makeup.

So, we recognize that we do have these problems and we are making every attempt to become more efficient in just how we provide fair and equitable treatment to all the communities in Yukon, from Whitehorse and surrounding areas to Beaver Creek to Old Crow. It doesn’t matter what size of school we’re talking about. It doesn’t matter what size of classroom we’re talking about. These problems are inherent from the smallest classes all the way to the largest classes that our teaching professionals — our educators — have to deal with.

So, these certainly are issues that I’m aware of and the Minister of Health and Social Services, the Minister of Justice and other ministries within the territorial government are looking at solutions. We’re encouraging our deputy ministers to take the message and direction that we’re providing, as government, in a leadership role to allow the public service to really do their job, to allow teachers to work in cooperation and partnership with these departments within government.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, we have an incredible public service, and we just need to find ways to unlock and open the floodgates so that they can work laterally, not always looking up and down the stove pipe of their department. So, we are directing the deputy ministers to do that. We’re instructing specifically that we want the departments, at all levels, to find solutions to the problems we’re hearing about, and that’s what we heard about on the budget tours, that the social service rep in the communities isn’t talking to the educators in the communities, and vice versa.

Well, in small communities, this is just unacceptable. This isn’t providing the service that our students need in our schools, or service for the other social problems we have in communities — FAS and FAE in adults.

Although there are distinctive responsibilities and policies that departments have to implement as a result of government instruction, we’re asking them to think outside the box. We’re asking them to be innovative, creative and supportive of the communities, and we’re here to support and provide for that.

But I do hear what the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin is saying. She’s asking for more financial resources to help support the needs of the communities by providing professionals who are able to work, and we are working on those solutions, Mr. Chair. I’m confident that we will be able to do that.

I would also like to extend my appreciation for the assistance that the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin provided to the Education Act review committee up there. This is what I’m talking about, where respective parties can drop the barriers when there’s a recognized problem that we want to find a solution to. So I want to thank her personally, here in the House. I want to acknowledge that she did help with how the Education Act review committee listened to the community up in Old Crow.

Ms. Netro:      Thank you, I appreciate that. That is something that my community has always held a great pride in doing, welcoming people into our community who can be of assistance to us and who will listen to us and follow through with some of the assistance that we do ask for.

Still on the area of health issues, I am making a presentation this evening to the women’s committee, and the topic is "What women want." I have received feedback from various members of my community in the area of health. One of the great concerns that the women in my community have is in the area of FAS and FAE. I would just like to bring that to the member’s attention because, in our communities, even though we try to address those issues with very limited services, we do need some key information to be able to access training for our community members. We need to have access to that type of training so that they can come back to our communities and help us deal with these issues at the community level. Another suggestion is having some of the children from the school travel down to Whitehorse and visit several areas of resources within Whitehorse, along with their parents, so that they know how or where to access this information. My question to you is, with the dollars set aside in the Health department for prevention and information, do the communities have access to those dollars?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I believe that that’s what this government is all about, Mr. Chair. We are about listening to the needs and issues and responding in a constructive manner.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Can the Member for Ross-River Southern Lakes hear me now? Okay.

It is about just that. We are available through the various departments, whether it is Education or Health and Social Services, and listening to what the needs and requirements are in the community and accommodating with notice, with co-operation, and with becoming aware.

I believe that the Minister of Health and Social Services is certainly prepared to be doing that.

I am again taking the suggestions brought forward by the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin that we will make every effort to accommodate, through programming, t…. Through delivering, toward the needs of the community.

With respect to the education part 1, certainly within the Department of Education or at Yukon College, look atlook at opportunities where we can provide the professional training that could serveice right directly, in the community, community individuals — people who live there. It certainly is a worthwhile suggestion.

I know that, Mr. Chair, I have had several meetings with the Ggrand Cchief, Ed Schultz,??? aAnd with Norma Shorty on integrations of better accommodating the needs of First Nations are in our education system. A, lalso, we are looking at ways that we could expand education practices within Yukon College, how we can provide the training, finding the holistic solution for traditional knowledge, and and current treatments for FAS/FAE. A, and who knows, one day there may be a Yukon-made solution that would serve the whole of Canada, through these cooperative efforts.

Ms. Netro:      From the delivery of services, I’d like to take you to one of our main services, and that has been a priority and an issue for my community for a few years. I, and it has always been brought to the attention of the government that we do have a great need in this area, and that area is in the term of a new airport terminal. I brought this forward before, and I reminded many of the members here that, when you do visit our community, you probably realize what it’s like when you arrive in a community and have to gather up your luggage in this small little area. I, and it can become a safety issue.

I want to remind the member opposite again that this has been a priority for the community for years, along with the new airport terminal that we requested.

There were several places within that building that we were looking at to put some other areas of interest for the travellers who come through our community during the summer and winter months. We have a lot of people who come to Old Crow for meetings. We have many visitors in the summertime. We have a lot of tourists who come through there in all seasons. And, as many of you know, we do have a very rich culture, we have a rich heritage, we have many items that are waiting to be placed in a safe place, so that we can have these items on display for people to learn about who we are.

Some of those items go back thousands and thousands of years, and one of the places that we would like to see within this new building is the visitor reception centre. We’re proud to share our culture, our heritage, and share information about our people with the people of Canada and with the people of the world, no matter where they come from.

We welcome these people into our community. We have people who come and ask us questions about how Old Crow first became a community, or where did our people used to live before Old Crow existed, and we do this on a personal basis with great pride.

We’re always, always happy to share that type of information so that people do understand who we are as a people.

That’s not the only thing that is important in that area. When we put forward our issues and concerns for our community, then we will be understood, we hope. And in this new building, we hope to have a place where when someone comes to our community and is waiting for their plane to arrive —sometimes it’s a few minutes late — they would be able to sit in comfort and have a cup of coffee, with some space around them. So that was a long-term plan that we did have, and I don’t see it in the budget that was put forward a couple of weeks ago. I would like the member opposite to assure, not only myself, but the people of my community, that this initiative is not going to be set aside; that it is something that we will be able to look forward to in the next year or so.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      With respect to the member opposite’s discussion of the Old Crow air ter