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 to pay tribute, on behalf of the Legislature, to a very special Yukoner.

Hector Lang is best remembered as a builder of the Yukon, using his ingenuity, his honesty and his trust. His word and his handshake meant more than a signature on a paper. Hector was a mentor to some and a supporter to many. He was a man who loved his family, surrounded himself with good friends and was genuinely concerned about those around him.

Hector and his wife Margaret came to the Yukon in 1958, where they raised their family - Mary, Heather, Archie, Danny and Sarah. They taught them to work hard and to be proud of their heritage. As time passed, their family grew to include nine grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

In the Yukon, Hector started working as a carpenter, at the Whitehorse dam and the fish ladder. Later, he and his business partner, Gunnar Nilsson, worked hard and long to link Yukoners together by building over three miles of bridge throughout the Yukon. Some of these bridges were the South Canol, the North Canol, Macmillan Pass, Campbell Highway, Carmacks and Faro.

Hector and Marg loved to travel all parts of the world, yet what they cherished most was their home in Whitehorse. He was well-read and knowledgeable about so many things, which was very apparent to anyone having a discussion with him around the kitchen table. I remember my first introduction to Hector. I had heard his name for many years in my history here. I was out campaigning in the MacDonald industrial area and he was at H. Coyne & Son's gravel yard. He spent a lot of time there advising the Coynes about the good and bad of life.

I can remember him when I walked in. He knew who I was. He said, "Oh, here comes Don Roberts, that Liberal." Then I find out later that Hector had been a long-time Liberal when he lived in Alberta, so he and I have a spirit together.

Hector was a Navy man, a family man, but most of all, importantly, a gentleman. He will be greatly missed by his family and everyone who had the privilege of knowing him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I would like to introduce at this time his family, Dan Lang, his partner Val Hodgson, Archie and Karen Lang, Hector Ian Lang, Fraser Lang, Gordy and Daisy McIntyre, and Bonnie Brett, a good friend. I would like the House to welcome them here for this procedure. Thank you for coming.

Applause

Speaker:      Are there any further tributes?

Are there any further introductions of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I have a legislative return relating to a matter outstanding from a discussion with respect to negotiations with Liard First Nation and Kaska First Nation on February 28, 2001, in Hansard, page 1085.

I have a legislative return in response to a question that the Member for Mayo-Tatchun asked on February 28. This is an oral question in Hansard, page 1087 to page 1088.

Mr. Speaker, I have a legislative return relating to a matter outstanding from discussion with respect to contracts and transition costs related to Executive Council Office on November 14, 2000, in Hansard on pages 377 and 629 to 631.

Mr. Speaker, I have a legislative return. On March 8, 2001, the Member for Mayo-Tatchun asked an oral question in Hansard, page 1243, regarding the Intergovernmental Relations Accord, and I have the accord for tabling.

Mr. Speaker, I have a legislative return with respect to a matter on February 28. The Member for Mayo-Tatchun asked a question regarding the government reporting process, and I have the legislative return.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I rise today to inform the Legislature about the results of our second call for bids under the Yukon Oil and Gas Act.

Anderson Resources Ltd. submitted the winning bid of $2.89 million for a parcel of land in the Eagle Plains region. $2.89 million reflects the highest value for exploration work to be undertaken on the parcel of land within the initial term of the permit.

This is the culmination of over nine months of work that began in June of last year with government-to-government consultations with First Nations. The process also included consultation with industry and conservation groups and the general public. In fact, our process for oil and gas dispositions under the Yukon Oil and Gas Act is the most open in the country.

I am very pleased that Anderson continues to look for new opportunities in the Yukon. This winning bid represents a commitment to explore and develop this area and could lead to a significant discovery in the Eagle Plains basin.

Our government has recently issued a geophysical exploration licence to Anderson Resources allowing the company to conduct seismic work on two parcels of land that Anderson selected in November 1999. The result is that Yukoners are working now in this new industry.

Today's announcement brings the total amount that Anderson has committed to spend in the Yukon to over $23 million and proves that the future of oil and gas development continues to be bright.

We are now in the planning stages of our 2001 call for bids. We have made a commitment to industry that a land sale will be held every year. An announcement will be made this spring regarding what area of the Yukon will be under consideration.

I look forward to receiving the support of all members of the Legislature on this very positive development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie:      I'd like to thank the minister, the Premier, for this press release. It's obviously not a ministerial statement of government policy but an announcement. It's an announcement that we, on this side of the House, are very pleased to hear - that our oil and gas industry is continuing to develop. We are also comforted to know that the Liberal government is following through with the good work of the former NDP government with regard to the Oil and Gas Act and oil and gas development in this territory.

It's also important to note though, that announcements like this should be factual in their entirety. One of the things that jumps out is the statement that $23 million will be spent by this particular company. It should have been noted also that this $23 million covers a period of six years, and that they will only spend the full $23 million should their seismic work, which is a much smaller expenditure, prove successful, triggering further exploration for oil and gas.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, and this is a sad note, Anderson, as early as today, is screaming for a trained workforce, which is no longer in this territory. In fact, many of the trained workers in this particular sector have already gone to the Northwest Territories, to areas like Fort Liard, to seek employment, and are actively working there at this time. It is our hope that we can supply a workforce for Anderson Exploration here in the territory.

We are also very hopeful, on this side of the House, that the fruits of their labour will bear results, and our oil and gas industry will continue to grow and flourish, so that for many, many years to come, maximum benefits can accrue to this territory and its people.

Mr. Jenkins:      I rise in response to this announcement. It's not a ministerial statement, Mr. Speaker.

Now, while any economic news about resource investment in Yukon is good news, all one has to do is examine what is going on in the Northwest Territories in relation to oil and gas exploration, and compare that to the Yukon. The N.W.T. is approaching $1 billion in oil and gas exploration. What's going on here in the Yukon? A few million dollars perhaps.

Mr. Speaker, it could be said that the Northwest Territories is having a massive prime rib roast, and what the Yukon is left with is a measly little meatless rib bone and we're trying to make some soup of it, and it's pretty thin soup indeed.

Let's look at the current situation. Anderson Resources has 31 people working in the Eagle Plains area, 26 of whom are Yukoners. These hardy Yukoners are cutting the 270 kilometres of line by hand on snowshoes, and the snow is pretty deep this year, Mr. Speaker. The company needs a lot more workers, so I'd encourage the Premier and her Liberal colleagues to sign up now so that they can gain some first-hand experience in the oil and gas industry and what it entails. Unfortunately, the current exploration phase is only for 60 days. After the line is cut, the surveyors will follow and then the seismic drillers. The Premier and her Liberal colleagues must be aware that it's difficult to make a living in Yukon with only two months of work.

Can the Premier, in her response, advise the House how many year-round jobs will be created overall in this new $2.89 million bid by Anderson Resources? Further, can she give a breakdown of how many jobs will be created in each category - for line cutting, survey and seismic work - as well as the duration of each category of job? This information will give Yukoners a better understanding of the job opportunities that may become available in the oil and gas industry.

Previously, the Premier indicated that there were going to be 60 jobs created in northern Yukon this winter. Does this estimate still stand, in view of the fact that there are only 31 people currently working? Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but make note of the fact that the Premier is making much of Anderson Resources spending $23 million in the Yukon, which I presume is over a four- to six-year period, whereas she completely missed the boat with regard to the $75-million U.S. feasibility study of the alternate pipeline routes, an estimated $20 million of which is slated to be spent here in the Yukon.

But it was awarded to outside companies. While Yukoners would welcome any work that they can get, including the tough job of cutting line, there will hopefully be some much longer term, permanent jobs created in the oil and gas industry here in the Yukon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, it's interesting to hear the comments from the opposition today, from the members opposite. It is interesting that the Member for Klondike, no matter how many times I provide him and the general public with information, proceeds with his own view of the world.

When our government announced the call for bids last spring, both opposition parties were opposed to us calling for bids. Now we are not making enough money from the same bids. Now we are not doing it right. The NDP and the Yukon Party are on both sides of this debate. The winning bid is close to $3 million, and it demonstrates that the industry has confidence in this government and in the common oil and gas regime in the Yukon.

The members opposite do not seem to appreciate exactly what a work proposal bid system is for our oil and gas regime. I would just like to advise them that, with regard to a work bid proposal, the way the system works is that when rights are issued on the basis of this type of bid, the company that proposes to spend the highest total amount of money doing exploratory work on each parcel within the initial term of the permit is awarded the rights. In this case, government does not receive the money that goes into general revenue, as it would if it were under a cash proposal bid. This is a very complex system, in that other governments, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, operate under a different system. Northwest Territories and Nunavut - well, Northwest Territories more so than Nunavut - operate under a different system from that.

The members opposite asked what else we have been doing and what Yukoners are doing. Yukoners are being trained to work in this industry, and I would also advise that this government has also worked very closely with Western Geco, an oil field services company out of Calgary that has won almost all of the large seismic contracts in northern Canada. We have worked hard with this company on my various, very criticized trips to Calgary. We have encouraged them to hire Yukon people. They have done that. We have been successful in that regard. And, as a result of this first successful initiative and continuing discussions, they have agreed to hire a full seismic crew capable of cross-shifting from Whitehorse.

These are Yukoners who will be working and who will continue to be Yukoners.

We are going to continue to move forward, and we are planning our third land sale, as I noted. An announcement will be made later about what area of the Yukon is under consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:      This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fentie:      Well, the evidence is piling up that it is the Liberal government that needs to learn more about the oil and gas industry. One of the things the industry doesn't like is confusion.

Let me ask the Minister of Economic Development, with regard to her speech to the Chamber of Commerce the other day - when it comes to confusing messages. She states, "The federal government must leave the decision about what route is chosen to the producers." And this with regard to the pipeline. She goes on to say, "I don't believe it is the role of the Government of Canada to tell the North Slope producers that they must go one way or the other." Then the Premier, one short sentence later, goes on to say, "I intend to visit Ottawa again in early summer to keep the pressure on." Which is it - federal government butt out, federal government butt in, or is this just more Liberal butkus? That's Yiddish for "nothing".

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly compliment the members opposite on their command of various languages.

Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely obvious - or it should be, to the members opposite - that what I said to the Chamber of Commerce - and everyone in that room understood - was that it's the private sector and the producers who are making the investment who should decide the most economical and best route for getting their gas to market. Ottawa's role is the regulatory role. You bet I am going to be in Ottawa - and everywhere it takes - saying that Ottawa has a regulatory responsibility here. Make sure they're ready to deal with it and deal with it in a timely manner.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I'm glad the minister cleared that up for us. So, let me go on about confusion.

Today, in Alaska, when Mr. Scott Ogan, an Alaska State Representative, asked, "What is this territorial Liberal government's position on ANWR?", no answer was given. The position is not known. That is troubling for the producers, because a great deal of what will drive the Alaska Highway pipeline is obvious. It's the resource coming out of northern Alaska.

What is this government's position on ANWR? Can she clear that up for the producers?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, the producers know very well, as does Governor Knowles, where I and this government stand on ANWR. We have supported Yukoners - the Gwitchin - who are the most eloquent spokespersons on this issue, in our opposition to drilling in ANWR.

What the member opposite doesn't know, because I guess he didn't bother to read Governor Knowles' speech or any of his remarks, is that Governor Knowles has said, repeatedly, that the discussions around ANWR and discussions with respect to transportation of the North Slope gas are entirely separate and distinct issues. They are not linked in either the minds of the public or the producers.

I will loan the member opposite my copy of Governor Knowles' address, if he would like, so he can read it for himself and understand that point.

Mr. Fentie:      It is not necessary for the Premier to give me her copy of Governor Knowles' speech. We understand it fully.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and this Liberal government's only economic plank is the oil and gas pipeline. It's looking more and more today like a mere sliver.

Mr. Scott Ogan, Alaska State Representative, went on to say today that the producers want to increase the flow should the Alaska Highway pipeline become the project, from 2.4 billion cubic feet per day to 4.0 billion cubic feet per day. He went on to qualify that by saying that this means the existing agreement must be rewritten. That says to me that everything is back on the table. We're no further ahead than with either of the other two options. Can the Premier clear this up for us?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, sure I can, although I do note that the member opposite has bootlegged in a shopping list of questions.

With respect to the gas pipeline project - and, no, this is not the only project the Yukon government is working on with regard to the economy - and the treaty and whether or not the size of pipe and the amount of gas could be changed, there are legal opinions that support the fact that the treaty is valid, should some of those conditions change.

Question re:   Highway funding

Mr. Fentie:      Let's go on to some more confusing messages when it comes to Yukoners and what this Liberal government is doing about our economic situation.

At the same speech in front of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Speaker, the minister went on to say about job creation in this territory, "We have, for example, increased spending on highway construction to more than $30 million. That means jobs for Yukoners, meaningful work for Yukoners, now." I understand that the Premier, the minister, was being a little overzealous and exaggerated the claim because the facts are that, compared to the NDP budget of two years ago, highway spending hasn't changed one bit. It's the exact same.

Will the Premier, the minister, now clear this up?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, we're going to spend all afternoon no doubt discussing the Community and Transportation Services budget, and included in that is highway spending. The fact is we have increased highway spending. The fact is it will and is generating work for Yukoners and, what's more, it's investing in our infrastructure, and that is a sorely needed investment of Yukon taxpayers.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, let's go on with this particular line of questioning, then. The facts are that the Liberal claim to increasing highway spending simply is not the case. What they've done is decrease spending on Shakwak, cut the community development fund, cut rural roads, cut fire smart - eliminating all those jobs to increase or to create a couple more jobs in the summer on our highway.

Mr. Speaker, this government has a healthy surplus. Will this government now take some concrete action and put some of that surplus to work by creating jobs this summer through such avenues as rural roads by increasing that funding or Project Yukon, or by putting back the funding that should be there.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, let me be sure I got this right. Yesterday, the member opposite's leader stood up and said, "You've spent all the surplus." And today the Member for Watson Lake is standing up and saying, "You've got a healthy surplus." So when the NDP math is finished doing its various configurations, the member opposite will realize a number of things. First of all, it is perfectly normal that the Shakwak level of funding does what it's doing. It has gone from $23 million to $21.5 million. It's a normal fluctuation in the Shakwak budget. We have also increased the highway spending overall. Brushing and weed control - for various members opposite's benefit - has increased in excess of $100,000. The members opposite should also be aware, when he stands up and crows about the community development fund, that we all know what the review stated. The members opposite should remember that in their first year in office, the community development fund, which was supposed to cover everything, including arts and fire smart, was a total of $1.5 million. In fact, the total funding for Project Yukon, fire smart, and the arts fund is $2.5 million.

Mr. Fentie:      The real problem here is that the Minister of Economic Development, also the Minister of Finance, doesn't really know how much money the Liberal government has.

Mr. Speaker, there is, by their own figures, a surplus at the end of this fiscal year - in a matter of two weeks - of some $45 million.

Will this minister now use some of that surplus to balance some of the jobs that she has eliminated by making the claim that they have increased highway spending in cuts to other areas and put some of these people back to work? They have the money. All they need is the will and the capacity to do so. Will the Premier do so?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, what I just heard in that question was a plea from the Minister of Community and Transportation Services to the Minister of Finance to please increase the highways budget. That's what the member opposite was saying. I also heard the member opposite say, you know what, you have increased that - pardon the use of the word "you" - the government has increased the highways budget, and that's a good thing. I thank the member opposite for the compliment.

Question re:   Government openness and accountability

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

The Liberal election platform had a section entitled "Managing Government", which states, "Yukon Liberals want to create an environment of open and accountable government." Does the Premier believe her ministers are living up to this commitment when it can take up to six months to answer a letter? In fact, a lot of letters go unanswered. Some letters are not even answered at all, and the letters that are addressed to the ministers are automatically directed to the departments instead.

How does the Premier equate this with her government's promise to be open and accountable when, in many, many instances, the ministers aren't even aware of the letters that have been addressed to them?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, since the member opposite seems to know so much about the mail system, clearly we are being open and accountable. Or maybe he thinks he knows so much about the mail system.

If the member opposite has a problem and has not received a response to a letter, I would be happy to take that up. Perhaps there is a problem. No one in this Legislature is perfect. If there has been a problem with the letter and if there has not been a response, I will be more than happy to look into it for the member opposite. Send me over a copy and I will be glad to look into it.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, the issue is how the mail is currently directed. Now, unless the letter is marked "personal and confidential", the letter does not go to the minister, who it could be addressed to. It goes to the department.

The Premier's chief of staff has stated that this Liberal practice of sending the mail to the department before it comes to the Cabinet office allows the minister to not only receive the letter on his or her desk, but also to have all the background material provided by the department, together with a response. This makes the whole process, in theory, that much quicker.

Will the Premier consider providing the ministerial signature stamps to the department, so that they can complete it and send it back? Then they can be entirely out of the loop and we can speed things up.

It appears that the Minister of Tourism returned from Europe, and the spread of foot and mouth disease is quite evident in the Liberal caucus.

The problem is that responses are not being -

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

Mr. Jenkins:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When will letters be answered in a timely fashion, and when will ministers see correspondence directed to them?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, for heaven's sake. Does the member opposite want me to discuss the filing system next? For heaven's sake.

The Legislature is about dealing with issues that Yukon people are concerned about - about policy issues. If the member has an operational problem, in that he or some constituent has not received a letter, I am more than happy to be of assistance to the member opposite. However, needless characterizations and suggestions of the use of a signature stamp by this government are absolutely needless in this Legislature.

If the member wants to apply for a job in the mailroom, I will take his application. Actually, I'll direct it to the Public Service Commission, because they deal with the operational end of it. If the member wants to deal with an issue or raise a problem about not receiving a response to a letter, I will be more than happy to get it for him.

Mr. Jenkins:      The whole concept of parliamentary democracy is based on the premise of ministerial responsibility. The buck stops with the minister. Let's acknowledge that. What is happening in the Liberal caucus is that the mail directed to the minister does not go there. It goes to the department first and then it is routed back. Then there is delay upon delay upon delay. How her ministers are giving political direction when, in fact, everything comes back to them. The response is there, they just rubber stamp it, and they don't know what is going on. When are we going to get timely responses to correspondence and when are ministers going to be made aware of the mail coming to them immediately, instead of going through the whole system that is now currently in place, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The concept of ministerial responsibility is that ministers give direction to the departments, that ministers respond to constituents, and that ministers are members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly. As a member, and as a minister, I can assure the member opposite that I see the mail that is addressed to me, I sign the answers - in fact, I do not even have a signature block, and I am quite confident that there isn't a member on this side who has a signature block or who has the use of it. And it's actually a signing arm. The only signature block that I have - actually, I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker - is for Finance. And I don't sign every cheque personally. I think that would be a misuse of my time, to personally sign every single cheque. But I can assure the member opposite that I see all the correspondence that is addressed to me and that I have sent many letters back marked and rewritten that have been suggested and drafted. I know that ministers on this side are very conscious of correspondence and are very aware of what they are signing and are acutely aware of their ministerial responsibility.

Now, if the member opposite has a problem that we on this side have failed to answer - either a letter to him or a letter to his constituents, or to any constituent - I will be more than happy to deal with it. I have told the member that three times.

Question re:   Internet use by government employees

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, today I have a question for the Minister of Government Services.

We recently heard about a situation in Saskatchewan where government employees were disciplined for inappropriate use of the Internet, so I'd like to ask the minister about this government's monitoring actions and monitoring policies.

This is about monitoring policies. Does the Yukon government monitor Internet use by employees or keep logs of e-mail that they send and receive?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, I guess it's back to the Web site page again. We have actually put together a new Web site. It's in play and should be up and running fairly soon here.

The member opposite has asked if we monitor. Again, that's an operational question and I'm sure the Web site is being monitored by ISB. Again, we have a lot of other projects and activities underway with ISB, and we are maintaining and as accordingly as possible with ISB.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, I'd be absolutely embarrassed to stand on my feet in this House and answer in that manner. I did not ask an administrative question. I asked a policy question. I didn't ask a Web site question.

So, for the sake of the minister, I will repeat the first question and then I will add another question, so there will be two questions.

The first question is, does the Yukon government monitor Internet use by employees or keep logs of e-mail that they send and receive? That was the first question.

Now, the second question is, because of the privacy laws and the buzz that is out in the business world and the buzz that is in the government world, are logs of e-mail traffic ever requested by Cabinet ministers or their political staff, and under what circumstances would such a request be granted?

Hon. Mr. Jim: We do send out, I think, with the Internet process, warnings probably every three months or so to employees who use the Internet system. I'm not exactly sure what the member opposite is getting at. If there is something he wishes, certainly I could get it to him by way of a legislative return or by way of a written document to him.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, I'm asking a very, very serious question, and I'm absolutely surprised again that the Cabinet or any member of the opposite side is not aware about Canada, at least, and especially about Saskatchewan. It was a policy that was being developed and had been developed. I asked another question as to whether or not there was any e-mail traffic requested by the minister. I can't get that through.

You can read Hansard. I would appreciate an oral answer to my question. That is what I would appreciate.

Now, does this department or any other department maintain records of e-mail traffic or Internet use by the opposition members or by our staff. Again, it's a policy question, and I would appreciate an answer.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, Government Services looks after the information services branch. The ISB looks after providing Internet services to different departments. The departments are not responsible to look after the security or the information that comes through the Internet and the use of the Internet by employees.

In terms of providing services, we are working at that process. If the member opposite wishes to see further how far we go on that, in terms of security of Internet information coming through in our departments, I will be sure to return that information to him shortly - as soon as possible.

Question re:  Yukon Housing Corporation, mortgages on First Nations land

Mr. Keenan:      Well, so much for an open and accountable and a very transparent government, Mr. Speaker. I'm starting to think that maybe Big Brother is alive and well here in the Yukon Territory.

I have another question, Mr. Speaker, and it's for the same member, only it's in his capacity for Yukon Housing.

Now, last year, I wrote to this minister on behalf of constituents who applied for home repair financing, but were refused that financing by the Yukon Housing because they don't have a method to secure loans on First Nation land. Now, the minister said that he recognized that difficulty and that folks on settlement land are getting mortgages, and he promised to work on that for me with the Housing Corporation to provide solutions for that problem. So I'd like to ask the minister now, what direction has the minister given to the Housing Corporation to make sure that adequate, affordable and suitable housing is available to all Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, we've actually been working on a few First Nation communities. Yukon Housing Corporation is working fairly hard on it. We realize the issue out there about having mortgages on First Nation lands. We also understand that there are few funding agencies - such as the banking systems - that do provide mortgage loans on First Nation lands.

We are exploring a number of options that are available, and we are looking at the CMHC model, where the band-owned lands will be signed over to the proposed homeowner. What we're trying to do in that area is open up a working relationship with First Nation communities on housing and try to assist as much as possible.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, that answer is just starting to lend a little bit of credence to the Member for Klondike's question here. Now, the minister did stand on his feet and say that he understands that CMHC does it. Well, yes, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been working with First Nations in this capacity for many, many years - I think for a decade now. We mentioned that to the minister in our communication earlier about this problem, so we do know that there is a prototype and a benchmark out there. I fail to understand why we have to wait so long for this. The building season is coming up at this point in time. I understand that the First Nation in question is proposing a new lands title system. So I would like to ask the minister now if he is prepared, and what interim steps would the minister be prepared to take to correct this inequity.

Hon. Mr. Jim: I thank the member opposite for his question. I also say that we are taking interim steps. We are providing the home ownership program. I am positive this is what he is talking about. What we are doing is working at a number of options that are still under assessment or review. Hopefully this spring we will be coming out with a number of possible options that we could look at regarding home ownership. That is open to both First Nations and non-First Nations. With respect to home ownership on lands owned by the First Nation governments, we are still looking at options for that.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, this is not about home ownership. This is about home repair financing.

I put the minister on notice last September, after it had gone through the Yukon Housing Corporation, that this individual had applied, was very frustrated, didn't get the answers - didn't get any answers; not a positive answer - and was told, "We're looking at it." This individual has waited and is looking for home repair financing. There is a benchmark. There is a prototype within the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation. I don't see why we couldn't adapt those and look at them quickly.

I'm trying to give the minister the benefit of the doubt, but again I state that this has been around since last September and the building season is about to start. So I would like to know, again, if the minister will do something in the interim, because I don't have much faith that there's going to be anything in place for the coming building season. This will be two seasons that this minister has put off financing those repairs for this individual.

Will the minister please look into this, and do it sooner rather than later, so that maybe we can have some repairs and economics happening in my region of this territory this season?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, we are actually looking at different options that are available and, yes, I take this under advisement. I will be looking into it again and I will give a response to the member opposite in regard to the home ownership program and also the home repair program.

I know that in the home repair program we have addressed that it has to be titled land. We are looking at making those changes and we are looking at options that we can come up with. Certainly, things will not happen overnight, but we are working fairly hard on it.

Question re:  North American Tungsten

Mr. Fentie:      My question is for the Minister of Economic Development. Yesterday, the minister admitted that there were ongoing negotiations with North American Tungsten Ltd. Can I ask the minister to tell this House today what, in terms of industrial support, is North American Tungsten asking the Yukon government for?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Certainly. I appreciate the member opposite complimenting us on the work that we're doing with North American Tungsten and the fact that we have been working on this issue. We have been working on it since - mentions prior, and in an official meeting on February 28. In fact, the president of North American Tungsten met on Monday evening with the Member for Riverside.

The message from North American Tungsten has been very clear. The only request has been for infrastructure work with respect to the roads. That has been the only request. This government is fully prepared to deal with it.

Mr. Fentie:      It certainly is easy to compliment the minister.

Mr. Speaker, here is a chance for this minister and this Liberal government to honour the claim that they've made, that they have increased the capital spending on our highways. In this budget, we have a mere $200,000 for the Nahanni Range Road. This falls far short of what's required to bring this road back into shape so that it can handle heavy truck traffic.

We know that the surplus, here for the Yukon in two weeks, will be approximately $45 million. Will this minister now seek an allocation of at least $2 million out of that surplus and put it toward the Nahanni Range Road?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's cost estimates are very, very high, and the member is suggesting that that is what will be required. The first written request from North American Tungsten was on February 28. This budget was tabled February 22. That's why the member opposite doesn't see a larger expenditure for the Nahanni Range Road. We have been speaking. The cost estimates are changing. They are not finalized, and the cost estimate for the amount of work that has been required has not been detailed.

Now, the member opposite might want us to stand and issue a blank cheque on the floor of this House, but I certainly am not going to do that. This is Yukon taxpayers' money, and we are very mindful that we are managers of it, and we manage it wisely. When the company and the Government of Yukon officials have an estimate of what the cost of the roadwork will be, this government is fully prepared to ensure that the infrastructure is there. The supplementary that the member is asking for is not required at this point in time.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I'm to take it, then, that this good Liberal government is committed to upgrading the Nahanni Range Road so that it can handle heavy truck traffic again.

My final supplementary is to the minister. Watson Lake, as a community, is devastated economically. Any work on the Nahanni Range Road could certainly help many of the businesses and people of the community. They have the equipment, they have the capacity and they have the expertise to do this kind of work. Will this minister and her government now commit that, should any work take place on the Nahanni Range Road in the context of upgrades for North American Tungsten, people in Watson Lake, companies in Watson Lake, will get first crack at this work to help alleviate the severe economic burden that they are now under?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      First of all, I have committed to the member opposite on no less that four - probably five - responses yesterday and today that this government is fully prepared to deal with opening and maintaining the Nahanni Range Road. That is what we were asked to do by the company. That is what we are committed to doing. We don't know what the cost of that is going to be as of yet. We are still working on those arrangements with the company. If the member opposite is asking that I abandon the tendering process for road contracting work in the territory, I am not prepared to do that.

Speaker:      The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

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

Mr. Jenkins:      I rise to seek clarification of your ruling yesterday, Mr. Speaker, concerning a point of order regarding reference being made during debate to the absence of members both in the Assembly and in Committee of the Whole. Your ruling was made with respect to a statement that I made on March 7, 2001, when I said, "It is interesting to note that the government of the day is so concerned with decorum and the way that the House operates that they can't even maintain a presence here, Mr. Speaker." When a point of order was raised about this statement, I stated in defence, "I made no reference to specific members being absent. I believe that is what the Standing Orders refer to. I made reference that the government couldn't maintain a quorum in the House." As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the presence of at least nine members of the Assembly, including the Speaker, is necessary to constitute a meeting of the Assembly for the exercise of its powers. And eight members including the Chair constitute a quorum in Committee of the Whole.

You note in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the Standing Orders of this Assembly do not, in the provisions respecting rules of debate, address references being made to the absence or presence of members. You state, however, that, based on parliamentary authorities such as Beauchesne's, it has long been the practice of this House to prohibit drawing attention to the absence of members. Annotation 481 in Beauchesne's Sixth Edition states that a member, when speaking, must not refer to the presence or absence of specific members.

Mr. Speaker, this is what I was referring to in the statement of my defence, in that I wasn't referring to the presence or absence of specific members, but there weren't enough members in the House to maintain a quorum in keeping with section 3(1) and section 3(3) of our Standing Orders.

In your ruling, however, you went beyond annotation 481 in Beauchesne's and made reference to page 522 of House of Commons Procedures and Practices, as well as referring to a footnote citing eight examples between 1994 and 1999, when the Chair ruled on reference to the absence or presence of members. You concluded from these references that even the most oblique reference to who is present and who is not is not allowed.

Mr. Speaker, section 3(2) of our Standing Orders reads as follows, "If, at any time during a sitting of the Assembly, the Speaker's attention is drawn to the fact that there does not appear to be a quorum, the Speaker will cause the bells to ring for four minutes and then do a count. If there is still not a quorum, the Speaker shall adjourn the Assembly until the next sitting."

In view of your rulings yesterday, even the most oblique reference to who is present and who is not is not allowed. Will you please clarify if a member who draws to the attention of the Speaker that there is no quorum present pursuant to section 3(2) above will now be found to be out of order and ruled out of order in contravention of your ruling. Mr. Speaker, I seek your clarification.

Thank you very much.

Speaker's statement

Speaker:      Thank you for that, leader of the third party. Would the Chair have the benefit of your prepared point of order, or will I be able to take it out of the Blues? Will that be satisfactory? Obviously, that was quite long, and I'm not prepared to make a ruling on that now, but I will certainly review the Blues and review what was in my ruling. I won't guarantee it for the next day that the House sits, but I certainly will address the concerns you have and do everything I can to make it fair and the best ruling I can. So the Chair will look at it again. I can't do it now.

If that is satisfactory, I will then return to the business of the House and proceed to the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Kent:      Mr. Speaker, I move 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

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

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Deputy Chair:  We'll take a 15-minue recess.

Recess

Deputy Chair:  I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will proceed with discussion on Bill No. 4, the First Appropriation Act, 2001-02. We're in general debate on the Department of Community and Transportation Services.

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

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, when we left general debate yesterday, we were posing a series of questions to the minister, and most of them went unanswered. In fact, we were posing questions identical during this session as last session that still haven't been answered from the last session.

One of the questions that was of paramount importance was dealing with Old Crow and dealing with the licensing of snow machines, three-wheelers and four-wheelers, and the law really hasn't changed with respect to this area for quite some time, but there has been a concerted effort over the last year and a half to license all these snow machines and three- and four-wheelers.

My suggestion to the minister was why not make an exemption for the residents of Old Crow so they can utilize their snow machines and their four-wheelers in the same manner that residents of the Northwest Territories currently do in the outlying communities, and residents of Alaska do in some of the outlying communities, Mr. Deputy Chair?

Virtually the same question was posed at the last sitting, and no answer was received from the minister, and it's the same this time. It's ironic that the Liberal government is saying we don't want to create a double standard with respect to licensing across the Yukon Territory, but Old Crow is a prime example of a First Nation community, accessible only by air, that is dealt with in a distinct manner, which recognizes their culture, their heritage, and rightly so, Mr. Chair. We only have to look at some of the requests originating in Old Crow for an exemption from the Liquor Act so that it could be a dry community. An amendment to the Liquor Act was put in place to accommodate their request.

What I'm suggesting to the minister, Mr. Chair, is a further amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act to exempt Old Crow - that specific area - from provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act with respect to snow machines and three- and four-wheelers. Why not? It's a lifestyle. It's a way of living. I guess the minister is going to come back and say there's an inherent risk associated in doing this but, given the number of kilometres of roadway that currently exists in Old Crow that the Government of the Yukon is responsible for, it's a stretch.

It's a real stretch, Mr. Chair. There is another area that is interesting to note, dealing with Old Crow, which is costing the Government of the Yukon money, that needn't be. Again, it's a political decision, and that is dealing with the usage of fuel. Virtually all of the fuel going into Old Crow is used for heating, power generation and, to a very small degree, to power vehicles. And in Canada, on highways, vehicles using fuel must use a fuel that is sulphur-free. Exemptions can be obtained when there is a need. In Canada, the northern part of Quebec has an exemption. What it means is that you have to take in a specific amount of fuel to utilize vehicles on the highway. In Old Crow, 50,000 litres of designated fuel has to be flown in each year, kept in a separate tank, and used just in the vehicles on the roads, to conform to the letter of the law in Canada. Now, it's a political decision not to seek an amendment or a variance from the laws of Canada in this regard. Northern Quebec has it and the Northwest Territories has it.

The State of Alaska, where a great deal of our fuel comes from, has also been exempted by the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. of the provision of requiring sulphur-free fuel for highway vehicles. Alaska burns more fuel in two days than the Yukon does in a year, Mr. Chair. So the order of magnitude that we're talking about is considerably different. In Alaska the product is referred to as P50 or P60. And it's used in all of the jet engines for aircraft, it's used in the U.S. military, it's used for power generation, it's used for heating, and it's used for on-road vehicles operating on the highway systems.

So what we have is the ability of this government to seek a variance from this provision and avoid an additional cost, without really putting any undue strain on the environment, because what we're talking about is a very small amount of sulphur being burned in the fuel in the highway vehicles - vis-à-vis the same fuel being burned for power generation in Old Crow. And now the school is completely heated with oil versus wood. There are also the emissions from the fuel that contains sulphur there.

Unless we're going to say no sulphur fuel across the Yukon, we have to rely on that fuel. A lot of it comes from the refinery just south of Fairbanks, at North Pole. It does have a sulphur content, as does heating oil manufactured in southern Canada.

We have also explored with the minister a number of issues surrounding the land development and land issues. We didn't receive many responses to the questions. Let's start off with the area surrounding Old Crow and see if the minister has any responses today. The minister has had all last session to review her position and create an answer. It was not forthcoming. The same question is being posed in this sitting of the Legislature.

Does the minister have an answer as to why Old Crow can't be exempted from the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for the licensing of snow machines, three-wheelers and four-wheelers? And I must comment, Mr. Chair, that three-wheelers are not licensed anywhere else in Canada. In fact, you can't license them anywhere else in the Yukon.

So, there is kind of a double standard there, if you want to refer to it accordingly. But so be it. I don't really have a quarrel with creating a double standard when it enhances or produces benefits for Yukoners and makes their standard of living and quality of life that much better. This certainly will. The minister only has to start asking a number of people who have to run around and find receipts for their snow machines, where they bought it from or obtained insurance, and, indeed, in some cases, even obtain a driver's licence.

Does the minister have a response to why we can't exempt Old Crow like we have done in the Liquor Act? We made specific provisions for Old Crow in the Liquor Act. Why can't we do the same in the Motor Vehicles Act?

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Deputy Chair:      Ms. Buckway, on a point of order.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I would like to draw the attention of the Assembly to the presence in the gallery of Bill Braden, the MLA for Great Slave in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. Bill was a long-time resident of Whitehorse, and he and his family are here being tourists this week. We hope they stay another day.

Applause

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The MLA for Klondike has again gone through the same territory he went through before the close of business yesterday, on the question he raised of exempting snow machine and three- and four-wheelers in Old Crow. The residents of Old Crow are required to comply with the Motor Vehicles Act just as all residents of other Yukon communities and other areas of the Yukon Territory that aren't communities are required to comply.

Registration of snowmobiles, ATVs and other motor vehicles used on the roads in Old Crow is required under the Motor Vehicles Act, section 38. Registration under the Motor Vehicles Act is not required when the vehicles are used exclusively off-road.

Old Crow residents have indicated to the licensing contractor that they were pleased with the service being provided in Old Crow, and the RCMP have indicated that they are also pleased with the level of registration compliance.

Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits the registration of vehicles that, due to their nature or their characteristics, would present a hazard to other road users, such as three-wheel ATVs. The department confirms that there are no three-wheel ATVs knowingly registered in the Yukon.

The RCMP reports that they have seen no three-wheel ATVs on Old Crow roads since May 1999, and they are not aware of any being registered.

I find it interesting that the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation has not asked for an exemption. The MLA for Old Crow has not asked for an exemption. Nobody in Old Crow whom I have spoken to or any of my colleagues have spoken to has asked for an exemption. Nobody, except the MLA for Klondike, has asked for an exemption.

On the matter of the sulphur-free fuel, where, again, the Member for Klondike would like to institute a double standard for Old Crow, I am not aware, as I said yesterday, why the previous government chose not to ask for an exemption from the federal government for the community of Old Crow. Again, the MLA for Klondike is the first one to raise this with me as a problem. But I would be happy to look into the situation and get back to him.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, what we are doing on this side of the House is pointing out ways of improving the lifestyle and standard, reducing the cost to government, and showing leadership, Mr. Chair - something that the side opposite, the government of the day, is having difficulty doing. But these are two very important issues, and I can assure the Minister of Community and Transportation Services and her government that she will be hearing further from Old Crow on the issue of licensing. That initiative will probably be forthcoming in due course. I hope that she can give that request serious consideration, and not just the brush-off answer that the minister has given - or the length of time that it has taken to put together.

So, I noticed that the words were carefully crafted that the government is not aware of any three-wheelers knowingly being licensed. I respect that position.

The other area that we were exploring with the minister yesterday and got little, if any, answers was surrounding the Whitehorse waterfront development - the historical high-water mark and who actually owns the land.

Could the minister advise the House as to who has title to that land? Has she found that out or ascertained that information in the last 24 hours, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I believe yesterday I said to the member that I would get him a legislative return on that subject, and indeed I will.

Mr. Jenkins:      I thought that, just out of curiosity, the minister would ascertain who owns what land down there, and where historical high-water marks currently are and where they were when the land was surveyed, because it does bring forward quite a number of questions. I'll leave that issue alone for a little while. I'm sure we'll get back to it.

Mr. Chair, the other issue was the rental of a motorhome for the highway enforcement people to attend on the Top of the World Highway for just over a month - the month of May and the month of June, according to the information received from the minister. I believe the minister said they were sent up from May 28 through to June 30 of last year.

Could the minister provide the Legislature with the total cost of sending the individuals out and keeping them on the Top of the World Highway for this length of time? There are the basic salaries, the travel time, the time away from home and costs of room and board - they had to purchase food to live out there. What actually was accomplished? There must have been a report done by the department as to the effects of this. I'm very interested in knowing the reasons for it, in that road restrictions were not placed on that route for quite a period of time.

Could the minister advise the House if weight restrictions will be coming into force this year on the Top of the World Highway, and, if so, will the weight restrictions be in sync with the Alaska side so that we have the same weight restrictions on the Alaska side as the Canadian side? Because there seems to be an issue there - that we have two standards - and I would be very hopeful that Canada could parallel the U.S. weight restrictions, if indeed they impose them on this route. It is primarily the importation of fuel from North Pole, Alaska. When fuel arrives in Dawson from that route, Mr. Chair, it reduces the cost of fuel in Dawson by five cents a litre. Mr. Chair, that's a significant reduction in fuel costs for the Dawson area, let alone the GST compounded on top of that five cents a litre, Mr. Chair. Now, will there be weight restrictions on that route this year? If so, will they be consistent with what the weight restrictions will be in the State of Alaska, Mr. Chair, on the Taylor Highway?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I'd like to correct the Member for Klondike on something he said. The dates I noted yesterday with reference to the motorhome rental were the dates of the contract. That is what I said, and I will ask the department if the cost for that period of time for the enforcement officer or officers on the Top of the World Highway can be pulled together.

As for the reason they were there, the reason they were there was to enforce the weight restrictions that were in place last spring, which were being disregarded by some people. We expect that there will be weight restrictions on the Top of the World Highway again this year. As to whether or not they will be the same as the weight restrictions imposed on the Alaska side, that is hard to say, Mr. Chair, because there are differences in road surfaces, differences in the shape of the road. And the primary purpose of the weight restrictions is to protect the road surface, and we will protect the road surface. That is our primary consideration.

Mr. Jenkins:      Interesting. I take the minister back to page 1336 of Hansard and her remarks yesterday. The statement was made by the minister, "The motorhome rental was April 28 through June 30 of last year, and it was for the mobile weigh scale crew on the Top of the World Highway during the period of weight restrictions..." If the minister wants to correct the record and apply different dates to it, I'm prepared to accept that. But that's what the minister said yesterday, Mr. Chair. I can't see there being a point of order.

The contract period that is clearly identified is the 4^th, the 28^th to the 6^th and the 30^th in the contract book, but what the minister said is clearly on the record.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I was reading from the dates in the contract book. It's quite likely that the motorhome wasn't actually out there the first day or wasn't still there the last day.

Mr. Jenkins:      What I'm seeking from the minister is an overview of which days, what crews were put out there to monitor highway weight restrictions, what they accomplished, how many trucks they actually weighed, and what it cost. I'm seeking that information. It appears that we have another legislative return underway. Is that the case? Will this be by way of legislative return again?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      If the Member for Klondike wishes for the information to be provided by way of legislative return, it will be. It will take some time to pull that information together.

Mr. Jenkins:      I'm having difficulty accepting the minister's premise that the weight restrictions in Yukon could possibly be different from the weight restrictions, if any, in the State of Alaska. It's the same road with the same conditions, built to virtually the same standards, if not better in some cases.

The minister, if she has had an opportunity to drive the Taylor Highway in the last few years, would find that, from the Tetlit Junction toward the Yukon/Alaska border, the first 23 miles are chipseal. The road is being upgraded at the end of that 23 miles, to just before Chicken, and chipseal will be applied. The contract has been awarded, and the contractor was there actually working on it late last summer. It's Quality Asphalt out of Anchorage that has the job, Mr. Chair. They're working on it currently, but it didn't get chipsealed last year.

So, to say that the road situation in Alaska is different from the road situation in Canada is pretty difficult, given that there are only a few individuals who know the technical nature of the surface and the technical nature of the roadbed.

What I'm seeking from the minister is a uniform approach to weight restrictions on both sides of the border. Given that 120 miles of the road is in Alaska, and 60 miles is in Canada, what problem does the minister have with applying a uniform standard of weight restrictions to this highway, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The Yukon government does attempt to coordinate with Alaska, but it is not always possible. Our first responsibility is the protection of our road surface, and we do sometimes have to make decisions different from those made in Alaska.

For example, if they didn't put any weight restriction on the road this year, that would cause the Member for Klondike a problem, because we almost certainly will have weight restrictions on the Top of the World Highway this year. But the protection of the road surface is our primary consideration.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, if the minister was of that opinion, she would have equipment in there now where it is melting, and she would have the road surface cleaned down to the chipseal and graded off to the sides. But that may or may not even be possible this spring, and that will cause more breakup of the chipseal surface than virtually anything. There is not a vehicle on the highway. Now, I am sure that her officials will confirm that that is indeed the case. I would like the minister to stand up and say that, yes, she is aware of that - that if they don't clean the snow off the road, if they don't push the snow back from the shoulders, the potential for breakup of the chipseal is usually very acute and usually happens at an alarming rate. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Of course it causes damage to the road surface if we don't take the snow off it. That's why we take the snow off it.

Mr. Jenkins:      Could the minister confirm that there is the possibility this year of not being able to get that heavy equipment over there to undertake this work? Or is it fait accompli that that heavy equipment will be over there - the graders and the snow blowers necessary to open the road?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      We believe that the necessary equipment will be able to get over there on the ice bridge and will accomplish the snow clearing. However, there is still a distinct possibility that there will be weight restrictions imposed on the Top of the World Highway, as has happened as a matter of course over the past many years.

I realize that the road surface is different now. But again, the departmental experts make that decision based on the condition of the road, based on the weather, et cetera. We are also quite aware that five cents a litre is saved by hauling fuel over the Top of the World Highway, but, I repeat, the protection of the road surface is our main consideration, because if the road surface is damaged, the cost to repair it becomes excessive. I know that the Member for Klondike understands that.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, Mr. Chair, even if there were just the lightest weight traffic traversing that highway, given that the roadbed was not built to the normal standards, the chipseal isn't going to stay. It was a cognizant decision of officials within the department and probably a political decision not to build the Top of the World Highway roadbed to the normally accepted standards and to apply chipseal on the top. It's breaking up irrespective of the weight of the vehicles.

Now, can the minister just confirm for the record that the roadbed was not built to the normally accepted standards for a highway with that weight loading, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Upgrading work on the Top of the World Highway began in 1993 and was finished in 1998. BST was completed in the summer of 1998. The road was reconstructed to a minimum acceptable BST standard with a very limited budget. Failures were expected and adverse weather conditions in the spring of 1999-2000 created more damage that expected in a normal spring. There are some structurally weak areas on the Top of the World Highway. We know where they are, and over the next several years we'll be fixing them.

However, weight restrictions will, in all likelihood, be necessary this year to avoid further damage to the road surface.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, weight restrictions normally are removed from a highway when the frost comes out of the ground. Could the minister advise the House how we determine when to remove the weight restrictions on the Top of the World Highway?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      When the frost is out of the ground is the main consideration for when weight restrictions are removed. It also depends on the stability of the road surface and how much moisture there is, which is why we take the snow off. There is no guarantee in this business.

What the member is wanting me to say is that you can haul as heavy loads as you want across the Top of the World Highway this spring. Well, I'm sorry, I cannot give him that assurance. In all likelihood, there will be weight restrictions on the Top of the World Highway.

Mr. Jenkins:      No, Mr. Chair, to the contrary. What I'm looking at and what I'm seeking from the minister is that the Yukon will have the same weight restrictions on the Top of the World Highway as Alaska has on their portion of the Taylor Highway, so that we have a consistent pathway for the haulers to bring their product. What is currently happening is that the haulers can haul a specific weight to the border. They have to offload a certain amount, so that they conform to the Yukon weight restrictions.

Now, it would make an abundant amount of sense to a layperson that the same rules should apply on both sides of the border. Could the minister give an explanation as to why they cannot? Why can't we have the same rules as Alaska, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      In the first place, the weights and dimensions laws in the United States are different in many respects from those in Canada. In the second place, Mr. Chair, I have already explained to the Member for Klondike that we try to coordinate weight restrictions so they are the same on both sides, but we cannot guarantee that.

The protection of the road surface is the primary consideration, which the member seems determined not to understand. There are some structurally weak areas on the Top of the World Highway, and running heavier loads on those areas will cause more damage. It's probably like having a weak point in an artery or something. The blood flow will go along just fine until it hits that weak point, and suddenly you've got a problem.

You need the weight restrictions to protect the weakest area of the highway. Now, in an ideal world, we would have the same weight restrictions as Alaska does, but that is not always possible. We try to coordinate, but it is not always possible, and we have to think of our highway surface first. That has to be our main consideration.

The member doesn't want to hear that, but that's the truth, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, one doesn't have to be an Einstein; one only has to drive the Top of the World Highway and the Taylor Highway to witness first-hand that the weakest sections in that highway are in Alaska, and yet we can't get in sync with Alaska with respect to weight restrictions.

Mr. Chair, let's go to the other end of the Yukon. Let's go to Highway 37, B.C. It leaves just north of Watson Lake and goes down into B.C. Why are we out of sync with British Columbia with respect to weight restrictions there on that highway. Why can't we have the same weight restrictions in the Yukon as British Columbia has on their section of Highway 37?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I believe the Member for Klondike occasionally goes south for vacations because it's warmer down south. The south end of Highway 37 has substantially different weather conditions than the north end, and the north end happens to be our responsibility. As well as that, we have to protect our road surface and plan our weight restrictions according to our road surface in the Yukon, not the road surface in B.C.

The frost comes out of the southern part of Highway 37 a lot earlier than it does our Yukon section. Again, we make the decisions based on our roads, not on somebody else's.

Mr. Jenkins:      I would urge the minister to undertake a briefing on this issue from officials so that she has a clearer understanding of it than what is being portrayed here in the House. But, what we are aiming for across North America is a uniform standard. The northern part of Highway 37 exists in virtually the same weather conditions, if not more adverse, than exist in the part of Highway 37 that comes into the Yukon. Its standard is not anywhere near close from Dease Lake north to the border, as it is from Kitwanga coming north. There is a beautiful section of highway in there that is paved or chipsealed to a very, very high standard but, after one leaves that area, there is a section where the Government of British Columbia ripped up some chipseal and reduced it back to gravel because they were having difficulty maintaining it. Why can't we be in sync with the other jurisdictions with respect to weight restrictions on our highways? The only one that appears to have some consistency and uniformity is, in large part, the Alaska Highway. With the other routes, there is not. That's all I am asking the minister. The rationale that the start of Highway 37 is a different highway with different weather conditions from the northern part just doesn't add up to the end results that we are currently seeing. There is a considerable weight restriction on Highway 37 in the Yukon that doesn't exist in British Columbia. Their Highway 37 goes through a very, very difficult terrain and a considerable variance in temperature extremes.

They go from almost a - well, down on Highway 16 East, there could be a lot of snow and a lot of rain where Highway 37 takes off from, but by the time it hits the Yukon border, the weather conditions include some of the most adverse snow and are very similar to what we experience in the Yukon. In fact, the snowbelt there is known to be one of the highest. So why can't the Government of the Yukon get in sync with Alaska and British Columbia with respect to weight restrictions on our routes?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      It would be lovely if we could upgrade all our roads to the strength of the Alaska Highway.

The department does talk to the Government of B.C. about the weight restrictions. However, we have to make our own decisions for our own section of road, based on their condition and other factors. I note with interest that B.C. did have to rip up some BST and replace it with gravel. Perhaps if they had had weight restrictions more like ours on that section of road, they wouldn't have had to do that.

However, again, the protection of the road surface is our primary consideration, and each jurisdiction must make its own decisions based on the factors I have outlined several times.

Mr. Jenkins:      The reason British Columbia tore up a section of BST along Highway 37 had nothing to do with the weight of the vehicular traffic on top of it. The BST was applied over a substandard base, similar to what the Government of the Yukon has done on the Top of the World Highway. They have applied BST over a very substandard base.

And there are going to be problems, and those problems are going to become acute, and there's going to have to be an expenditure of money on the Top of the World Highway to rebuild the base and reapply BST, if that is the political direction chosen. Because I don't think the minister would receive any support to just tear up the BST. But it still goes back to the question, Mr. Chair, of why the Government of the Yukon can't be in sync with British Columbia and Alaska with respect to weight restrictions on some of the secondary highways that we have.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I've already answered that question.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, it's obvious that the minister doesn't have an understanding of this area in her portfolio, and I'd urge the minister to ask her officials to fully apprise her of this very important area, because it is an important area, especially for truckers - truckers who supply the lifeline to the Yukon, because virtually all of the commodities we consume here in the Yukon are imported - oil, groceries. It doesn't really matter. They are virtually all arriving on our doorstep via highway. Very little comes in by air, Mr. Chair. And that we do not have the ability to institute a uniform weight restriction on our highways - I guess it's the lack of political will on the minister's part. We'll put it down to that and leave that issue alone, because it is a very, very important one, and it's one that the government is going to miss the boat on.

While we're on the topic of highways and uniform rules and regulations, is the Yukon getting in sync with the rest of Canada with respect to - I'm not referring to the National Safety Code. So that applies with respect to the balance of the rules with transports and licensing of vehicles so that we have one uniform standard all across North America. Or are we going to be the odd jurisdiction out, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      No, Mr. Chair, we're not moving in that direction at this time. It is an extremely expensive proposition.

Back to the Top of the World Highway for a moment, I note that the less-than-high-quality road was installed during the Yukon Party government. If they had put in a suitable road, perhaps the member wouldn't be complaining about the weight restrictions at this point.

I have replies to some of the other questions the Member for Klondike asked yesterday. He was asking about the north end lots developed by the City of Dawson, and whether they were actually in the inventory of the Government of Yukon and not the City of Dawson. I told him at that point that they were. They are in the inventory of the Government of Yukon.

The member asked about contracts in the contracting summary report, whether they were just lapses that have been accounted for, or are they going to be subsequently let and issued. In general, some contracts can lapse from one fiscal year to a subsequent one, either because of the agreed-to completion date in the contract or because the planned work couldn't be finished for reasons acceptable to the contracting authority, which in this case is the government. In such circumstances or conditions, the budget allocated also lapses and gets revoted in the immediately following fiscal year so that the work can be finished and the obligations met under the contracts. Contracts lapsing over fiscal year-end are not terminated and subsequently let and issued.

The specific contracts identified were to install aircraft run-up pads in Dawson City, some quarry development on the Shakwak project and to produce and stockpile aggregate. There was another one with the City of Whitehorse, all except the one with the City of Whitehorse were completed and closed since the date the contract report was issued. That was issued September 30. The contract with Bonanza Sales closed October 18. The one with Ketza Construction for quarry development on the Shakwak project closed October 23, and the one to produce and stockpile aggregate had closed on May 11 of last year.

The contract with the City of Whitehorse regarding a playground in Spruce Hill subdivision still remains open. That one had been issued on December 7, 1999.

The Member for Klondike had asked about the maintenance of land value in the books and whether or not I could provide the actual amounts that the lots are on the books for, and I would like to provide some clarification to my response yesterday.

Land inventory is recorded in the financial systems and reported in the public accounts at development cost. As I stated yesterday, records with sale prices attached to finished land lots are also maintained in the land inventory system, as well as in hard copy at the land disposition front counter.

The Member for Klondike also asked yesterday about the provision of telephone service to the Callison area lots in the Dawson City area. My department and Northwestel have an agreement in principle on the provision of telephone service to these lots, as I outlined yesterday to the member opposite. The Department of Justice and Northwestel's legal department are reviewing the wording of the final agreement, and the telephone installation will proceed this spring.

As for the sale of the lots, lottery ads will go in the papers, including the Klondike Sun on April 5, and will run for three weeks. The lottery will close April 30 at noon, and the lottery and the tender will be held in Dawson City on May 2.

Mr. Fentie:      I'd like to follow up with the minister on this issue of weight restrictions because it has been an ongoing issue year in, year out for a long, long time.

Firstly, let me point out to the minister that every Yukoner pays for weight restrictions, because what happens is that trucking companies faced with hauling a 75-percent payload merely recoup their loss in revenue by upping their freight rates.

Secondly, I have yet, as many, many other Yukoners have yet, to see the evidence that distinguishes road damage that would happen at 100-percent weight restriction versus 85-percent weight restriction. If there is a soft spot in the highway, whether you are 100-percent loaded or 85-percent loaded, it's based on frequency of traffic over that spot that will pound it out. Thirdly, a 15-percent weight reduction is in payload; therefore, you have to look at what happens in the overall truck unit. That 15-percent reduction is spread out over every axle. There is no evidence here that warrants an arbitrary number of weight restriction, like 85 or 75 percent. What is the basis for choosing those reductions in payload?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Every Yukoner will pay if there are no weight restrictions because we will be rebuilding all of our highways. I offer the members opposite a detailed technical briefing on the reasons for imposing weight restrictions. You choose the time and we'll set it up. I certainly hope that the members will attend because it will give them some understanding of this very serious situation.

Mr. Fentie:      I am not trying to be argumentative here. What I am trying to point out to the minister, and what I am asking for is this: what is the evidence, and what is the rationale? The reason that I ask this is because I have experienced it for many, many years of my life, and I can tell you that it doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way. Any amount of traffic on a thawing road can ultimately, at some point, if the frequency of the traffic is such, cause some damage in a thaw. What I am trying to ascertain here: are we needlessly pulling out these arbitrary numbers from 100-percent payload to 85-percent payload to 75-percent payload?

What's the rationale? What's the evidence that shows that that is the instrument that protects our highways?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      It's not arbitrary, Mr. Chair, and I urge the members opposite to take me up on my offer of a detailed technical briefing. The highway engineers would be more than pleased to explain this to the members opposite.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, it's not necessary. Anybody who has bounced over frost heaves and then, in the spring, had to bounce through them again because they have sunk, understands what this really is all about.

Let me ask the minister this then: when we have a mine site like Faro operating, how is it that those ore trucks can haul at a certain weight when they're already grossly overloaded throughout the year, because they have that extra payload on? How is it that they can truck, and they don't seem to damage the highway, yet in other areas, this problem arises?

The engineers have not proven to the minister, or probably have not shown the minister, any evidence that 15-percent, 20-percent, 30-percent weight reductions are actually being effective.

The point is, why are we choosing those percentages when, in other areas and under other trucking conditions, those things aren't being applied, yet our roads seem to be there, year in and year out, with minimal damage?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The Campbell Highway between Carmacks and Faro was in very good condition when that ore haul was taking place, and it was also primarily a gravel road, and on gravel roads excess weight isn't as big a problem as it is on chipsealed or paved roads.

I am not a highway engineer; I don't pretend to be a highway engineer; however, I certainly believe my highway engineers, and I urge the members opposite to take advantage of the technical briefing I have offered them on this subject, so that they will gain an understanding of the reasons for the road restrictions.

Mr. Jenkins:      The bottom line, Mr. Chair, is that there was a political decision made a number of years ago when the Faro mine was in operation. Whether it was White Pass or, subsequently, Lomak, it was hauling from Faro to Carmacks to the turnoff on the Alaska Highway, along the Alaska Highway and down the road to Skagway. They were permitted to operate at 100 percent of legal axle load for 12 months of the year. There were never any weight restrictions placed on that.

There were a couple of times in the early years of White Pass when they did have some minor weight restrictions. I'm not aware of any that were imposed on Lomak. Yes, the Campbell Highway is primarily gravel, but the highway from Carmacks to Whitehorse is chipseal. The Alaska Highway is hot asphalt in part, and chipseal virtually all the way to Skagway, except for a few hills that are hot asphalt.

That decision at that time was a political decision that was made. All I'm asking the minister to do is look at the disparity between British Columbia and Yukon on Highway 37. Bring weight restrictions into sync with British Columbia. All I'm asking the minister to do is to look at the Top of the World Highway and the Taylor Highway, and if there's a need for weight restrictions, bring them into sync with Alaska.

We are talking about virtually the same road surfaces. There are probably a bit better standards in Yukon than in parts of Alaska, if we are referring to the Taylor Highway. Certainly Highway 37, in the northern part, is in the same weather conditions as we have here in the Yukon. So, that's not an excuse.

There just seems to be decisions made in isolation, whether they be in respect to how we dovetail our rules and regulations here in the Yukon with the rest of Canada - because we are out of sync with the rest of Canada. The minister is stating that it's going to cost us a lot of money to come into sync with the rest of Canada.

Could the minister table a current overview, given the tremendous downturn in licensing here in the Yukon, of what the financial equation would be with respect to coming into sync with the rest of Canada on motor vehicle regulations - not National Highway Safety Code, that's a given? Mr. Chair, I don't believe those numbers have been crunched since the days of Lomak's operations, and if they have, they show a steady, steady downturn. We only have to witness the amount of revenues that were derived by the Government of Yukon from vehicle licensing last year in the commercial sector. I'm sure the minister's official has those numbers at her fingertips. Just how much of a reduction have we experienced in the last three years with commercial vehicle licensing in, say, the last three years? What has the downturn been, in total dollars, say, from the last year that Lomak was in operation to today? We've got to go back five years, but we're talking a significant reduction from when the mines were in operation until today. So to get into sync with the rest of Canada, I don't think we're waiting for the oil and gas industry to provide a boom, because most of those vehicles that come in here will be permitted. The bottom line is, Mr. Chair, we've got to get into sync with the rest of the world. We're in a global economy; transportation is a key.

The minister doesn't appear to have an understanding of it and doesn't appear to be capable of providing adequate political direction, and that's a shame, Mr. Chair.

So, if there's a technical briefing being offered, I'd urge the minister herself to take the time and gain an understanding of it, but don't just insist on a technical briefing from her own officials. When she's visiting other jurisdictions, ask the same questions. Ask the same questions when she visits Alaska. Phone up Commissioner Perkins and talk to him. I'm sure the minister has met with the Commissioner of Transportation in the State of Alaska. I don't know who she would talk to in B.C. today at the political level. They're changing as fast as I change my socks, and that's daily, Mr. Chair, but there's someone there who has an understanding of this issue.

All I'm looking for is a commitment from the minister that we look at getting into sync with the United States, specifically Alaska, and with British Columbia, specifically on northern Highway 37. Can the minister undertake that kind of a review, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I certainly will agree with the Member for Klondike that, in the global economy, transportation is the key. It's too bad that previous administrations didn't recognize that when they cut our highway capital spending from $20 million in 1992 down to $3.8 million in the previous fiscal year. If they truly recognized that transportation is the key, they would have put the money into the infrastructure. We have $2.3 billion in highway infrastructure, Mr. Chair. The previous NDP government just left it there to rot. They put no money into it at all.

It's hard to be in sync with the adjoining jurisdictions that have much larger highway capital budgets. Our first priority is to protect our road surface. I have said that before and I will continue to say it, and that is the reason for the road restrictions.

The members opposite obviously aren't interested in a technical briefing. They don't want to know the truth about road restrictions.

Mr. Jenkins:      The minister is categorically wrong with respect to her priorities. The first priority is not to protect the road surface. The prime reason for a highway is to provide an access corridor for the movement of goods and people - on which to build an economy. The minister needs an understanding of the basic tripod on which an economy is built: transportation, energy and communications. And the highway is part of that transportation corridor.

Now, if the department insists that their priority is to protect the surface of the highway, we might as well just remove all traffic from the highway - and I must admit that the Liberals are doing one heck of a fine job at doing that here in the Yukon. Our economy is in the doldrums, our visitor industry is going backwards, about the only traffic that we are experiencing is the traffic on its way to Alaska or on its way through the Yukon from Alberta, up the Dempster Highway, to Inuvik, and on to the Mackenzie Delta.

There was another document that was commissioned during the NDP regime. It was a highway corridor study. Could the minister advise where that study is at and when we will be seeing it?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      There have been a number of studies. I am not sure which one the member is referring to. And I would point out that had previous administrations spent the money that they should have spent on the highway system to rebuild them, we might not need road restrictions. But when the highways aren't as top-notch as they could possibly be, you need road restrictions to protect the highway surface. If you don't protect the highway surface and you allow fully loaded or overweight vehicles to run on them, you pretty quickly won't have a highway surface, and one-third of your triangle is gone.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, better to have to rebuild one-third of the triangle than the whole darn triangle, or the tripod that the Liberal government is managing to destroy.

I'm kind of disappointed, Mr. Chair, seeing that the minister doesn't have the answers to the questions, is not prepared to obtain them, and just blames everything on previous administrations. That's not fair. I'm asking the minister, Mr. Chair, to look forward, to move ahead. The minister indicates she's trying to. I have to admit, she is very trying but, be that as it may, Mr. Chair, the issue is to have a uniform and consistent set of rules here, not developed in isolation, but developed in sync with the adjoining jurisdictions. Why can't we do that?

Alaska has the same conditions on the highway as we do. British Columbia has the same conditions on its northern highways as the Yukon does. In fact, in a lot of cases, it's Yukon contractors who are building the same highway in both the northern British Columbia and Yukon jurisdictions, Mr. Chair.

It was a Yukon contractor, operating under his Alaska entity, that built a good deal of the Taylor Highway.

So the standard to which they're being built is not much different. It's just the interpretation being put on by the respective departments of highways. Now, Yukon meets on a regular basis with British Columbia; Yukon meets on a regular basis with Alaska. Why can't the two jurisdictions get in sync with respect to weight restrictions - when weight restrictions may or may not be necessary? Why can't that be done, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The Member for Klondike is choosing not to hear the answer. We don't have the money to rebuild our roads to the required standard. If they were all like most parts of the Alaska Highway, weight restrictions might not be necessary. Many of the roads are not to that standard.

I don't have the budget that Alaska has for their roads. I don't have the budget that B.C. has for their roads. I'm trying to get the budget back to what it was eight years ago. We are at a 10-year low in this current fiscal year and we're making a start on restoring highway funding. Once the highways are all in top-notch shape, we can be in sync with B.C. and Alaska. But the Member for Klondike is choosing not to hear this.

If we do not protect the road surface we have now, we will not have any road surface. We will not have any transportation corridor. The member is choosing not to hear this, and he knows better.

Mr. Jenkins:      I always appreciate being lectured by someone who is very much a novice in the department for which they are -

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Deputy Chair: Ms. Buckway, on a point of order.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      We've been through this several times, that personal attacks have no place in this House. And we would get a lot further along if we could just get down to the work at hand.

The Member for Klondike had been complaining on Monday this week about personal attacks directed at him. It's obvious that he thinks that personal attacks by him on other members are just fine, and I think that's a shame, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, there's no point of order. There's a dispute between members, and I note that the minister has the remarks all scripted for her in this regard. It's really, really interesting to see where the thrust and emphasis of this minister is.

The issue before us is to debate the budget and debate the department. Answers are not forthcoming. Now, the answers are not there because the minister doesn't know. That would lead one to conclude that we have a novice minister. That's it. That's a fact. It's not a personal attack on the minister; it's a statement of fact.

Deputy Chair's ruling

Deputy Chair:  Well, I find that there is no point of order here. It is merely a dispute between members. I would ask members to refer to comments made by the Chair, Mr. McLarnon, yesterday, urging members to be judicious in their choice of language to facilitate debate during Committee. With that, I would ask the member to continue.

Mr. Jenkins:      Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, once again, to the novice Minister of Community and Transportation Services on the issue of a standard application of rules through our jurisdiction - Highway 37, British Columbia, same highway in Yukon, and the Top of the World Highway and Taylor Highway. What I'm looking forward to hearing from the minister is a commitment to go back and have a look at this area to see if there is any impediment to imposing the same weight restrictions as the other jurisdictions have on their section of the highways.

Now, there has to be some rationale for proceeding the way we do, Mr. Chair. The only rationale is that the highway officials have decided that, and they've sold the minister on it. I have to admit, Mr. Chair, that there's a great deal of technical expertise within the Yukon's department of highways.

The bottom line is, in some areas, that a political decision has to be made to ensure that trade and commerce flow in a meaningful and commonsense manner. That manner is kind of out the window; it's sidelined, Mr. Chair. I ask once again for the minister to have a look at the arrangements that the Government of Yukon had with Lomak. Lomak, when they were here, were allowed to haul a 100-percent legal axle load from the Faro mine site to Skagway, Alaska, 12 months of the year - 12 months of the year. It's interesting to note that 100-percent legal axle load existed on the Klondike Highway from the turnoff from the Alaska Highway to Carmacks, 12 months of the year, when Lomak was in operation. But as soon as they cease operation, weight restrictions are brought into force. Why would that be, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, the Member for Klondike asked if there is any impediment to bringing our weight restrictions into sync with those of B.C. and Alaska. Yes, there is. Our roads aren't up to the same standard. I would like to ensure that trade and commerce will flow through the territory and they won't if we don't protect the road surface. The member seems to be having a lot of trouble figuring that one out.

Millions and millions of dollars were spent upgrading much of the road for the Lomak ore haul. The money for adequately maintaining that road has not existed for many years. The money for adequately maintaining all our roads hasn't existed for many years. The money for rebuilding them simply hasn't been there.

We have to restore highway funding and get our highways back in the shape they should be. The reason for weight restrictions is to protect the road surface so the trade and commerce isn't stuck in the ditch, which it's going to be if the Member for Klondike has his way.

I would urge the member to accept my offer of a detailed technical briefing so he can understand the severity of the problem, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      Let's move on to another Yukon highway that's going to require considerable expenditure. What's the order of magnitude of expenditure we're anticipating on Highway 10?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The member loves to play silly little games and refer to roads by their number, rather than by their name. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      What kind of a nonsensical, silly answer was that, Mr. Chair? I asked a very legitimate question. I would expect an answer from the minister. I'm sure, as soon as she finds out where Highway 10 is in the Yukon, she'll be able to refer to her briefing notes, Mr. Chair, and provide an answer. In case the minister doesn't know, all Yukon highways are numbered.

Anyone who looks at a map can refer to the Yukon highways by their number, starting with Highway 1, which is the Alaska Highway, and Highway 2, which is the Klondike Highway, and so forth. Highway 9 is the Top of the World Highway; 10 is the Nahanni. Are there any highways the minister doesn't know their numbers? If so, I'd be happy to provide her with a road map of the Yukon so she can come to an understanding.

Could the minister stand up and tell the House what order of magnitude we're anticipating spending on the Nahanni Range Road, Yukon Highway No. 10?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the Member for Klondike well knows, it has been a number of years since I read the road report on a daily basis.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      He says, "Can't remember." No, I can't remember the number, Mr. Chair. I certainly know the Nahanni Range Road. The number isn't the important part. The name of the road is the important part. The Yukon government is very pleased at the prospect of North American Tungsten reopening the mine at Cantung, and we are looking at the impacts, in terms of highway maintenance needs. The meetings with North American Tungsten took place after this budget had been prepared.

My department met with mining officials on February 26 and committed to assist them with the road opening this spring, to permit the mining company to get equipment like generators to the site at an early date. We also agreed to develop cost estimates for maintaining the road on an ongoing basis and this work is currently underway. I expect that the figures will be available in the next few weeks. So, at this point, I can't give the member the answer he is seeking.

Mr. Jenkins:      Is this mine site going to be treated in the same manner as other mine sites that are charged on a per-tonne-mile basis or per-kilogram-kilometre basis? What is the scenario?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      It would be premature to speculate on an answer for the member. Those discussions have not yet taken place with North American Tungsten. The Faro mine had extra heavy loads - the member is shaking his head. The member knows everything, but that is fine. The discussions have not yet taken place.

Mr. Jenkins:      Does the minister's department have a policy with respect to how they recoup their expenditures? My understanding is that there is going to be a considerable expenditure of money to bring this road up to standard. There are quite a number of washouts. There are quite a number of multiplexes that they are going to have to replace. There are permitting requests. There is the wonderful Department of Fisheries that will have to be contacted to have all the necessary permits put in place for the road opening. The initial stages won't be much of a problem but to bring it up to any standard that can be used on a continuing basis is going to cost quite a sum of money. I want to know this from the minister: does her government have a position with respect to how they are going to recover that cost? Is it in the same manner that the Anvil Range mine and some of the other Yukon mines were paying, or are we just going to do it from the goodness of our hearts? What is the rationale and how are we going to recoup the losses?

There must be a departmental policy or position on these types of expenditures, especially when they're going into a mine site that may be in operation for a year or two years - maybe 10 years, we don't know. The other area of concern is that royalties will not flow to Yukon, in that the mine site is located in the Northwest Territories, other than being a supply hub. Watson Lake can enjoy a tremendous amount of commerce, supplying goods and services, and I'm sure the Yukon workforce will be tapped - what remains here in the Yukon after the Liberals have virtually devastated the Yukon workforce, scaring it away to other jurisdictions, primarily Alberta and the Northwest Territories. There will still be opportunities for Yukoners at the North American Tungsten mine site - the old Cantung mine.

What is the department's policy? Or do they indeed have a policy?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I have explained that the department is working on cost estimates for this. The Canada Tungsten mine stopped operating in 1986 and the Nahanni Range Road hasn't been maintained in the winter since that time.

There are very low traffic volumes on that road in the summer, so maintenance in the summer is basically just an inspection patrol and some very minor preventative work. The annual budget is in the $10,000 to $20,000 range.

While the mine was operating, the Yukon government maintained the Nahanni Range Road from kilometre 0 to kilometre 134. At that time, the cost was about $3,300 per kilometre. We are estimating now that it is more like $6,800 per kilometre, or, $915,000 for kilometre 0 to 134. We are also looking at some additional equipment at a minimum cost of $110,000.

Now, historically, the mining company looked after maintenance from kilometre 134 to the Yukon border at kilometre 188 and on to the mine site at kilometre 201. Historically, they spent in the order of $350,000 annually to maintain this section. Current estimates for that section would be about $418,000.

The current owner of the mine, North American Tungsten, has asked the Yukon government to support mine reopening by reinstating year-round maintenance to kilometre 134 and to consider maintaining the rest of it, and that is what we are looking at at this point. Because this mine is in the Northwest Territories, it does put a slightly different picture on things than if it were a Yukon mine, but we appreciate the importance it would have to the people of Watson Lake and are taking that into consideration as we're doing our work.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, given the order of magnitude of the cost of maintaining the road, approaching $1 million a year, even when you do not factor in the capital acquisition cost of new equipment, what it will probably require is maintaining the camp on the Campbell Highway at Tuchitua year-round versus just seasonally. There are all sorts of additional costs there.

The normal method that has been used by previous governments to recover costs from the mines is a charge per tonne mile. Now, what I want to know from the minister is what's the government's policy on this kind of expenditure?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I have already explained to the member that we are pulling the numbers together now. The dollars per tonne mile relate to the extra heavy trucks that were at Faro and at Sa Dena Hes. And discussions on this project are ongoing, as I have explained to the member several times.

Mr. Jenkins:      The minister stated on the floor of the House that we're looking at an expenditure approaching a million dollars to maintain this section of highway year-round to the standard that's necessary to support the mine, and I'm given to understand that that doesn't even take into consideration the short section from the Yukon/N.W.T. border right to the mine site. There's another section in there that I'm given to understand North American Tungsten have asked the Government of the Yukon to look at maintaining and costing out for them.

So, what I want to know from the minister is what is the government's policy with respect to meeting these costs? Are we just going to fund this out of general revenues, or is all this cost billed back to the mine owners, or what do we do in these cases? Because if you look at the mine in northern British Columbia that was going to be accessed through the Yukon, there was a request that went into the B.C. government to meet part of the cost of the highway.

What is the government's policy on recovering these kinds of costs?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The first meeting my departmental officials had with officials from North American Tungsten was on February 26. That was only a few weeks ago. We're still pulling the numbers together. The Premier has stated that we will assist this mine. Cabinet has not had a chance to discuss this because we don't have all the information we need to make a decision on it.

Mr. Jenkins:      I'm not looking specifically, at this time, at this road. What I want to know is what the government's policy is with respect to recover maintenance costs on a highway used specifically, like 110 percent, by the mine site. Probably about 99.9 percent of this road will be used by the mine site. There will be a small percentage of individuals using it to access the wilderness in that area or in the fall for hunting. But other than that, to maintain it to the standard that's being suggested, the additional cost to the Yukon government is approaching a million dollars a year.

I want to know what the government policy is, Mr. Chair, on the recovery of this order of magnitude of expenditure.

Or does the government have a policy, Mr. Chair? We seem to have a policy when it comes to putting into place weight restrictions on highways. They don't have to dovetail with anything or any corresponding or adjacent jurisdiction. They just put them on, throw a dart at a dartboard, I guess. I don't know how they're achieved.

What we're looking at, Mr. Chair, is a considerable expenditure of the taxpayers' money here. Now, what is the government's policy with respect to recovering these kinds of funds?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The Member for Klondike heard the Premier say yesterday that she was confident that the Yukon government will be able to meet the wishes of this company. We're working to ensure that we can maintain that road and ensure it's in good shape. And, as I said, we're pulling together the numbers. We haven't yet had a Cabinet discussion on this specific project.

Mr. Jenkins:      Could the minister just confirm that the government does not have a policy on recovering of costs on a mine road such as this - that there's no policy in place?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      As I keep attempting to explain to the member, this is a unique situation, and Cabinet has not yet had a full discussion on it because all the information we require is not available.

Mr. Jenkins:      So, could the minister just confirm that the government does not have a policy in place that deals with this kind of an expenditure - opening a highway to industrial traffic to a mine site in another jurisdiction? Because we have not just one potential; we have two - one in British Columbia, and one in the Northwest Territories.

So surely we have to know what the added costs will be to Yukon to maintain those roads, and we have an indication here that it's going to approach a million dollars a year to maintain this Highway 10. Now, I don't have any quarrel, but what is the government's policy with respect to this kind of initiative both here and with the potential mine site in northern British Columbia? What's the government's policy? And if there isn't a policy, could the minister just kindly say so, instead of skirting all around the issue?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I've already answered that question.

Mr. Jenkins:      Can the minister just confirm that there is no policy in place to deal with this issue? Just a simple yes or no.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I've already answered that question.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, the minister has not answered the question. The question to the minister is: does the Government of the Yukon have a policy in place to address this issue? A simple yes or no.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, the Member for Klondike is not listening. The Premier has said that we will be working with this company. We just don't have the details yet.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, I asked the minister for the government's policy on dealing with a mine site in another jurisdiction where we have to upgrade and maintain the highway to it. What is the government's policy about cost recovery? That's what I've asked the minister, because it's not just the North American Tungsten in Northwest Territories, but we also have another potential mine site in northern British Columbia that will be accessed through Yukon roads. Now, surely the government has recognized that there are costs associated with the added industrial traffic that will be brought to bear on our highway surfaces, and there are added costs. It's clearly indicated. The minister has indicated that the maintenance on Highway 10 will go from $10,000 a year to a figure approaching a million dollars a year, and that's not even taking into consideration the additional capital requirement for more equipment.

What is the government's policy on roads leading to mine sites outside the Yukon that we have to maintain? What is our policy with respect to cost recovery of the maintenance on those roads?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I have already answered that question.

Mr. Jenkins:      I'm still waiting for an answer, Mr. Chair.

Deputy Chair:  Is there any further debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      The Tulsequah mine in northern British Columbia - what is the cost to this government of maintaining the road to the standard that will be needed, and how will it be recovered?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Those figures are not a part of this budget. I don't have them available right now.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, I know that the department has met with the officials from the Tulsequah Chief mine. Numbers have been assembled. Could the minister endeavour to provide those figures as to what we're looking at in the Yukon for maintaining our section of the highway and upgrading it to meet the needs of the Tulsequah mine?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I could endeavour to provide those figures.

Mr. Jenkins:      I'm not asking her if she could. I'm asking her to do so. Can the minister confirm that she will do so, please?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, the member's words were, "Could the minister endeavour to provide..." Yes, I will.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, the other area I found a bit disconcerting was that the budget last year was about $10,000 to maintain the Nahanni Range Road. This year, we're looking at a number approaching a million dollars. Now, between $10,000 and a million dollars, there is a considerable gap. We are told by the Premier that that money will be found within the existing budget. That would lead one to conclude that there must be an awful lot of fat in Community and Transportation Services if we can find almost a million dollars.

Given the additional capital that is required to purchase new equipment, we are over a million dollars. So, that's the order of magnitude of the funds that we are told are necessary, and we are told they can deal with that issue within the existing budget. That's quite a stretch, and that's quite hard for an individual who has to look at a department's budget and hold them accountable for the up to a $1-million expenditure that can be found within that budget. Now, what is the minister going to cut or eliminate to put together that million dollars? Or is there just that much fat hanging around her department?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      There's no fat in the Community and Transportation Services department except on the minister who is wearing the pedometer and doing the 10,000 steps a day to get rid of it.

However, as I have explained, the department's first meeting with people from North American Tungsten was on February 26, after the budget had already been tabled. The discussions on the details of this have not yet happened, and I am looking forward to those discussions.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, it becomes abundantly clear that the government doesn't have a policy in place on access roads to mine sites outside of our jurisdiction. I would urge the minister to consider developing one so that there are some guidelines in place as to what we can recover and how we can go about recovering it. There are lots of ways other than just a straight cheque being written by the mine owner to the Government of Yukon. There are all sorts of ways. There is a lot of potential for a lot of business that could come our way and could focus.

So I would urge the minister to have her officials develop a policy to deal with these areas, because we have two potential mine sites - one in British Columbia and one in the Northwest Territories. There are two of them, Mr. Chair, and both may produce results.

Before I leave the issue for this session, unless some further information comes to light, Mr. Chair, I'd just like to go back on the issue of highway weight restrictions and a policy being developed by the government of the day to be consistent with other jurisdictions. I would urge the minister to go back to her officials and, when these weight restrictions come into force, if she could just ask her officials what the weight restrictions are in the corresponding jurisdictions, and if we do vary and if we don't vary and the reasons for it. Because I'm sure if we brought the highway engineers from B.C. up into the Yukon, they'd probably laugh at the weight restrictions here, as would our people here in the Yukon probably shake their heads at some of the decisions made in British Columbia. I know that to be the case from time to time, Mr. Chair.

We have to get in sync with the other jurisdictions. It might not necessarily mean any major deviation. We have different axle loadings, we have different axle spacings, we have a whole series of differences between Alaska and Yukon that should be worked on by this minister. In fact, in one of the discussions I had with the Commissioner of Transportation in Alaska, Mr. Perkins, he said, "Well, bring me a proposal. We'll look at it."

So, I'd ask the minister at this time to take up the challenge and to bring a proposal to Commissioner Perkins in the State of Alaska, the Commissioner of Transportation, through her department officials, to bring into sync a uniform axle spacing and loading in both jurisdictions.

It's something that can be done; it's something that would improve the trucking industry, and it would lower cost of products that are brought our way, Mr. Chair.

Now, currently, the major commodity that's trucked into Yukon from Alaska is oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, whatever you want to call it. That constitutes the biggest amount and biggest volume of product that's trucked our way. If we go on the premise that these truckers simply want to do a job and make a dollar, like everyone else, it's up to government to put in place a consistent set of rules - consistent between the jurisdictions.

Will the minister endeavour to take up this challenge and see what she can do, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I met with Commissioner Perkins in Juneau not long ago, and we did talk about the differences in our regulations, and we did talk about potentially synchronizing our weight restrictions. However, we do have to remember that the protection of our road surface is the most important thing. Once we get the highways back up to the standard they should be at, there will be no problem.

Cooperation between the Yukon and Alaska, with respect to all sorts of aspects of vehicle weights and dimensions, pilot escort vehicle requirements for over-dimensional loads, signing and vehicle visibility is feasible and could have a mutually beneficial effect on transportation between the Yukon and Alaska. We will continue to keep in touch with Commissioner Perkins and his officials for further discussion in these areas.

However, no other jurisdiction can be allowed to determine our weight restrictions. That has to be our decision.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, no one is suggesting that the Yukon do anything but develop its own weight restrictions, but what currently seems to be the trend is to develop them in isolation from what's going on in other jurisdictions.

I'm sure the minister has to stand up and defend these decisions. I don't know to what end or for what purpose. It only serves as an impediment to trade and commerce here in the Yukon, Mr. Chair.

It's not just Alaska where we have problems; it's also British Columbia. Could the minister advise what steps we're taking with British Columbia to bring our highway regulations in sync with British Columbia?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, we are working with all jurisdictions in Canada on vehicle weights and dimensions agreements. That work is well underway, and B.C. is a part of that process.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, I'm not really concerned at this time with the rest of Canada. I'm just really concerned with our neighbours to the west and to the south, Mr. Chair. B.C. appears, in many respects, to be out of sync with the rest of Canada, as is the Yukon. I don't know why. It may be a western alienation process or something like that.

But the issue is that there's quite a bit of difference in highway regulations between British Columbia and the Yukon, and the same rules do not apply to Yukon truckers going into B.C. as to B.C. truckers coming into the Yukon.

And I was just curious as to when we can hope to see this area addressed. Could the minister advise of any progress? If you want an example, Yukon truckers cannot truck logs from Watson Lake south to the mill. It has to be a B.C. trucker who comes up to pick it up. They can operate freely in the Yukon, whereas Yukon truckers cannot operate freely in British Columbia.

I am sure that the minister has been directed to the appropriate page of her briefing notes. Could she advise the House as to what initiatives are being taken by the Government of the Yukon and when we are going to be in sync so that Yukon truckers can operate in B.C. in the same manner that B.C. truckers can operate in Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Economic deregulation has occurred on cross-border trucking, so there is not any reason that I am aware of why people in Watson Lake can't haul into B.C.

Mr. Fentie:      It's a well-known fact that Yukon truckers have long, long had a major problem in being able to truck product such as logs out of the Yukon into British Columbia. This is the problem: the Yukon has deregulated but British Columbia has not deregulated in areas such as logs. So, what they do is try and force any Yukon trucker to go through an operating authority process before they can deliver logs into British Columbia, such as the Slocan mill. It has been a never-ending problem, but on the other side of this equation, B.C. trucks freely come to the Yukon. If they are hauling out of areas that are outside of communities like Watson Lake, south on the Alaska Highway, a lot of them don't even bother to buy a Yukon plate; they just simply come, load and go back home.

But they can just drive into Watson Lake, buy a licence plate and commence hauling with no further process, application or any other thing. It's a very unfair practice. It discriminates against Yukon truckers. It has been going on for years and we have yet to solve the problem.

Can the minister at least assure the House that she will make every effort to deal with the British Columbia government so that this practice, when it comes to Yukon wood - I'm not talking about British Columbia timber, I'm talking about Yukon timber - makes it that our product has unfettered access to the marketplace in British Columbia?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Yes, I can look into it and see what I can do, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, that's just one of the problems we face in operating in British Columbia. There's a whole series of problems in British Columbia. The minister only has to talk to those in the transportation industry and the trucking industry to ascertain what they are, and I would urge her to meet with the Transportation Association of Canada on this issue, because it's not going to go away.

British Columbians are more adamant than the minister is and probably know - well, we won't go there, Mr. Chair. They're more adamant than the minister and there's a whole series of problems, the end result of which virtually discriminates against Yukon-