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. Eftoda:      As all of us are aware, the Yukon government, through the Department of Renewable Resources, has been an active participant in the National Wildlife Week for many years. By coincidence, it also falls just in time for our annual Celebration of Swans events being held in several communities this year. A flyer is arriving in Whitehorse, Carcross and Tagish mailboxes today and tomorrow to outline some of the events that are part of the celebration.

I encourage everyone to take a moment to see if there is any event that they can enjoy for themselves, their families and friends. It's a fascinating agenda. At the same time, Yukon schools have received the information packages to help young people learn more about the value and importance of our wildlife resources.

National Wildlife Week was declared by an act of Parliament in 1947 to honour Jack Miner, one of the founders of Canada's conservation movement. This year's theme, "Our community includes wildlife - does yours?", is very appropriate for us here in the Yukon. We are very aware that our community includes wildlife.

It is very timely for the Gwitchin and the people of Old Crow as we talk about the value of the Porcupine caribou herd to their community and hear the concerns of the World Wildlife Fund. It is timely for all those who have responded to our present review of the Yukon Wildlife Act, and it is timely when we talk about the protected areas strategy and how we may be able to use that strategy to protect and preserve habitat and wildlife populations that are part of our community. It is time, as we talk about the progress being made to restore the Southern Lakes caribou herd and the value of that population to the Southern Lakes communities.

Mr. Speaker, many organizations, such as the Yukon Fish and Game Association, also play an important role in promoting public awareness on the value of our wildlife resources. National Wildlife Week is honoured each year and does serve to help promote an awareness of the values of our wildlife population.

Let us not forget that every week is National Wildlife Week in the Department of Renewable Resources, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

Mr. McRobb:      I am also pleased to rise today on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to National Wildlife Week and Jack Miner.

National Wildlife Week is celebrated throughout Canada during the week of April 10 each year. National Wildlife Week was established to honour Jack Miner. The National Wildlife Week Act was passed in the House of Commons in 1947 to ensure an everlasting memorial to Jack Miner's conservation efforts. The secondary purpose of the act was to encourage public interest via nature study groups.

The bill was passed without one dissenting vote. This was the first occasion since Canada's Confederation that a bill was passed unanimously. A pioneer in conservation who made significant contributions to recognizing the importance of preserving wildlife and nature, Jack Miner earned the reputation as the father of conservation. His many accomplishments include his work to save the Canada goose. As early as 1927, Jack Miner suggested that the Prime Minister take action to prevent pollution in the Great Lakes. He was recognized for his efforts by Canada, the United States and Great Britain. The Canadian Wildlife Federation has sponsored National Wildlife Week since 1963 and provides educational kits and events to schools, outdoor education groups and youth groups each year.

This year's National Wildlife Week theme is "Our community includes wildlife - does yours?" The theme encourages Canadians to get involved in wildlife conservation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Yukon's wildlife is diverse and relatively abundant. Environmental problems here are still minor compared to those in many parts of the world. However, it is clear that human activity is creating climate change, long-range air pollution, and regional and local habitat disruption is affecting some populations.

The Yukon's land and wildlife provide a livelihood and well-being for many Yukoners. This wealth has sustained First Nations for thousands of years and has attracted many others to live here. Of great importance to one of our major economic sectors - tourism - is the fact that this natural splendour now attracts thousands of visitors to experience what we have in the Yukon.

There are many local National Wildlife Week events planned for all ages to appreciate our good fortune in having more wildlife and wildlife habitats intact than most places on the planet. We can celebrate the swans' arrival at Swan Haven, learn about peregrine falcons at the MacBride Museum tonight or attend one of the many scheduled biodiversity-awareness events.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to get out, enjoy spring and participate in an event that recognizes the importance of wildlife conservation.

Mr. Jenkins:      On behalf of the Yukon Party, I also rise to join with members in paying tribute to World Wildlife Week and the founder of the organization, Jack Miner.

Canada's north is often referred to as the last frontier, home to some of the planet's largest species of wildlife and ecosystems. Approximately 77 percent of Yukon is wilderness, comprising 61 species of mammals, four species of amphibians and 278 species of birds. Compared to all of North and Central America, where 41 percent is wilderness, Yukon's wildlife is especially diverse and remains relatively abundant. From all corners of the territory, Yukoners have a deep and abiding feeling for the Yukon's environment and its wildlife.

According to the 1999 report, The Importance of Wildlife Viewing to Yukoners, Yukon residents far exceeded all provinces in the percentage of residents who participated in wildlife viewing in 1996. Whereas the Canadian average was 18.6 percent, the average for Yukon was 27.9 percent. For Yukon First Nations, the health of our wildlife is an intrinsic part of their culture and lifestyles. Though the lives of most Yukoners are not as closely dependent on the land as in past decades, hunting remains important to many as a way to acquire high-quality food and a reason for spending time outdoors.

For other lifelong Yukoners and Yukoners who have chosen this area, the environment is one of the major reasons for them having done so. For visitors, the abundant wildlife that calls the Yukon home is one of the major reasons for making the Yukon a destination.

While we are blessed with an abundance of wildlife, this is not to say that the rest of the world or the Yukon, for that matter, is without challenges. It has been reported that the Earth's plants and animals are going extinct at an alarming rate - a rate that some biologists have estimated at about 100 species per day. Many more species are at risk, including some that live in the Yukon.

The challenge for Yukoners is to preserve and protect our wilderness habitat for our children and future generations, while at the same time giving careful consideration to Yukon's economic future, ensuring a balanced outcome that provides a level of security to all interests that derive benefits from our land.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:      Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      On behalf of the Premier, I would like to table the following legislative returns. One is to the leader of the official opposition, responding to a question with respect to Yukon Government Fund Limited.

And there is a second response for the MLA for Kluane from March 26 with respect to Tombstone Park mining claims.

Another legislative return is in response to the MLA for Watson Lake from March 5, with respect to the oil and gas pipeline database. Also from March 5, a response to the MLA for Watson Lake on potential natural gas costs to consumers.

There is a response to a question by the MLA for Watson Lake on April 2 on the Canada/U.S. softwood lumber agreement.

There is a response to a question by the leader of the third party from March 12 with respect to the Alaska Highway pipeline right-of-way.

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

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the establishment of the Yukon Permanent Fund will benefit Yukoners in the present and for generations to come; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Government to:

(1) consult and work with Yukoners around the structure of the Permanent Fund;

(2) listen to what Yukoners have to say about how they would like to see the permanent fund and the interest it accrues best put to use; and

(3) refrain from politically interfering with the day-to-day operation of the fund, once the parameters of the fund have been established in consultation with Yukoners.

Speaker:      Are there any further notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      It is with great pleasure today that I announce, on behalf of the territorial government, a policy change to extend the campground season. This government has received numerous requests to extend the campground season in both the spring and the fall.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened, we have heard, and we are doing what we said we would do.

There is significant demand to extend the campground season from both Yukon residents and from Tourism Yukon, which is marketing the shoulder seasons. Extending the campground season will be consistent with these efforts to draw more visitors to the Yukon outside the peak visitor season.

Campgrounds are public facilities, and the public wants to use them if weather permits. There have even been calls from municipal governments, which see Yukon campgrounds as attractions that increase local business.

I am pleased to say that the more popular campgrounds will be opening in early May and closing late September or even late October. Again, this is weather permitting. In previous years, the seasons ran from approximately May 24 until shortly after Labour Day.

We have listened to the tourism industry. We have listened to the Yukon hunters and fishers. And we are very pleased to do this for Yukoners.

We feel that this will also benefit the additional tourists from Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere in the world who visit us in the shoulder seasons. Visitors realize that Yukon is not just a high summer season destination, but also a spring and fall destination, as well. An extended campground season will accommodate the longer time period, when direct flights are scheduled to arrive here from Europe.

As Yukoners, we always look forward to the first signs of spring - swans, snow buntings, crocuses, and we eagerly await the opportunity to spend time in the great outdoors. In the fall, we look forward to the crisp morning air - the air that kills the blackflies - and allows us to put away the lawnmowers for the season.

I would also like to inform the members opposite and the Yukon public that they can purchase their campground permits at all visitor reception centres, territorial agents, liquor stores, from campground staff and from over 100 private vendors, displaying the campground permit posters.

The cost of the permits remains the same as last year, being $8 per day for daily permits, $40 for a Yukon resident annual permit and $120 for a Yukon resident three-year permit - something this government introduced last year.

Permits are free for Yukon seniors over 65 years of age.

Thank you.

Mr. McRobb:      It is a pleasure to finally rise to a ministerial statement based on government policy. Now, we all know that ministerial statements should be a short, factual statement based on government policy and this House, all too frequently, hears ministerial statements that are more of a camera shot or a photo opportunity for the minister to stand up and grandstand about something. Just yesterday, I believe, we heard something that would have been better intended as a tribute rather than a ministerial statement. So, it is finally a pleasure to rise and respond to a government policy.

Now, that said, Mr. Speaker, what a policy we finally have. To quote a recent statement from the members across the way, we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel this time. Now, we are pleased - make no mistake about it, we are pleased - that there will be more time for tourists and Yukoners to enjoy the great outdoors in our many great campgrounds. However, Yukoners might not have the financial resources to enjoy the benefits of this new policy initiative because this Liberal government has failed to provide the economic means or produce jobs so they can go out and enjoy the recreation. In fact, most people I know who are camping these days are out there because they are gathering food for their freezers; they are having a struggle to make ends meet. We see the number of applications for moose hunts or bison hunts - I think that is an indication of how bad things are out there.

Now, I am wondering where the priorities of this government are. Now, it's nice to extend the campground season a bit on both sides, but where are the other policy initiatives from this government? It's good to see that the minister finally has an iron in the fire, so to speak, but where is progress in other major policy areas, Mr. Speaker? Ministerial statements are opportunities that the minister can take advantage of to let this House know about government policy initiatives, and instead, we are getting announcements like this. So, I would encourage the minister to roll up his sleeves and let's see some work on developing these other areas that reflect the priorities of Yukoners.

Now, to govern means to conduct the policy and affairs of state. This government would rather go camping itself, as soon as they can, so they won't have to think about the mess they have made, Mr. Speaker. And I would invite the minister to maybe put aside a weekend next summer; I'll go camping with him, and maybe we can sit down and discuss what some of the more significant policy matters would be for this government to introduce in its term, because there are plenty of them out there and it's time that we finally sat down and tried to address some of them.

Thank you.

Mr. Jenkins:      I rise to respond to this ministerial statement on extending the campground season. While this may be a new policy for the Liberal government, the previous Minister of Community and Transportation Services under the Yukon Party, Mr. Bill Brewster, did it as a matter of course.

The next ministerial statement we have from this Liberal government will likely be taking credit for reinventing the wheel, Mr. Speaker.

While the extended opening of Yukon campgrounds is a good thing that the Liberals have just become aware of, they should also be aware of the fact that there is a need to fill these campgrounds with tourists and visitors heading to the Yukon or through the Yukon, Mr. Speaker. As it now stands, Yukon campgrounds are going to be used primarily by Yukoners, aged 25 to 39, who are leaving the territory with their young families because of the disastrous economic policies of this Liberal government, of which we will be debating one later in the afternoon, specifically the protected areas strategy.

Also, Mr. Speaker, expectant mothers from rural Yukon who are required to be in Whitehorse for at least two weeks or more to await the birth of their child will be occupying campgrounds around Whitehorse as a consequence of the disastrous policies of the Minister of Health and Social Services in this Liberal government.

With high fuel prices, stiff competition from other jurisdictions, and uncertain economic times here in the Yukon, the Yukon is certainly going to have a tough time maintaining its previous visitation numbers. More likely, those numbers are going to remain flat or, in fact, decrease.

So anything that this government can do to attract more visitors to our area is very much appreciated. The extended campground season opening is one such initiative. I support it and I commend the minister for rediscovering it.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      It's nice that the members opposite got their commercial in, like the one about tasting corn flakes again - that kind of punch.

The Member for Kluane did not have a ministerial response at all. I would challenge him on that. It's all about showtime. They are very good at it. They know how to do it.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, we haven't had all our acting lessons yet, like the members opposite did.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, that's right. As the Premier says, we would never ask the taxpayers to pay for it.

I would like to thank the members opposite for the traditional drivel that they do pass to this side of the House. It's getting weaker and weaker all the time.

We feel that extending the campground season, even by a few weeks, is something that has been wanted by Yukoners, tourists and business people - particularly in the communities - for a long, long time. I am sure that the previous Minister of Renewable Resources was lobbied by more than just a few Yukoners to extend the campground season, but still chose not to act on that request.

We recognize that we must take care of Yukoners, first and foremost. The outdoors is a great part of most Yukoners' way of life. For some of us, it is a weekend camping trip with family at a favourite fishing hole. For others, like trappers and outfitters, it is their livelihood.

I'm sure that all of us, at one time or another, have used a territorial campground or day use area and appreciated that the roads were plowed, the facilities were clean and that there was wood at the campfire boxes.

We are building the economy, and tourists are part of that economy. We are getting more ecotourists visiting the territory every year, and they use our campgrounds. I'm sure you have seen an increase in the number of RV rental places in the territory, and we need to address the increased traffic coming north. We can't have tourists stopping at the side of the road, in driveways or in gravel pits because they can't find a campground. There are few places in the world where tourists can go and really, truly experience true wilderness. The Yukon is one of them, and I am very, very proud to live here and be a part of that.

Speaker:      This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Keenan:      As the Minister of Renewable Resources said, "It is showtime." Here we go.

I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Now, in the fall, we asked repeatedly about the safety issues at the group home at 16 Klondike Road. At that time, I can say that we received no answers.

Recent debate and media coverage have raised the issue again. These safety concerns were first focused around issues of worker safety and resulted in a review by the Workers' Compensation Board. Since then, the government has taken over operation of the group home. I would like to ask the minister this: have the safety issues raised by staff all been resolved since the government took over the operation?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, they have been.

Mr. Keenan:      An independent audit was done just last fall. After a great deal of resistance, we were finally handed a copy by the minister late yesterday afternoon.

So I would like to ask the minister: what has the minister done to address the issues raised by the safety audit since the department took over operations? Or has the minister simply just dismissed the report?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I guess spending about three days on this wasn't enough for the members opposite. I guess they want more to keep the issue in the profile. I am not sure what their objective is, because I think this has been a long-stemming problem. Even under their mandate when they were the government, this particular home was an issue. To be suddenly surprised that the government would take it on as something that they wanted to operate - it shouldn't be a surprise. I mean, I think they are trying to make more out of this than there really is.

It's unfortunate that they are doing it on the backs of the unfortunate. I really believe that this is not healthy for those people who are staying in these particular residences, to keep profiling the issue when there are no issues at this point. I think that it is important to know that any time recommendations come forward, we look at recommendations. If it means that we have to make changes in order to better the lives of those people in our care, then we do that.

Mr. Keenan:      I would like the record to show that the minister had an opportunity to answer the question but decided to grandstage, and that is his very own word. He decided to take the camera time and do a little bit of grandstaging.

So I would like to know again: what has the minister done to address those issues? I understand that very few of the group home staff who had established relationships with the youth within this facility were hired once the government took over the operations. I also understand that the new staff hired by the government have now left 16 Klondike. So I would like to know how much staff turnover there has been since the government took over. What does the minister think is behind that turnover? Again, these are simple questions.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes is always good at saying that we have never answered the question. I did answer the question. If the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes doesn't want to hear the answer, as I said in previous responses, that's that member's problem, not mine.

The staff turnover obviously is a management operational problem. It's not something that I get involved with. I don't operate these particular homes or residences. I don't micromanage. I leave that up to the staff that we employ. They're highly competent people. Obviously we want the highest quality people we can find because, as I have said on many occasions, the children, the young people staying in these homes, are not the easiest children to work with. It takes very competent people.

If the member has information there that I don't have about the turnover of staff since we have taken over, I would appreciate receiving it, because that's not what I'm being told, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, either the member is trying to present something here that is not necessarily the true picture or the member has something that I don't have, and that quite possibly could happen.

The important part for me, Mr. Speaker, is that I don't micromanage my responsibilities. I leave that up to my very highly competent staff.

Question re:   Klondike group home, safety issues

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, I'm not asking the minister to micromanage. I'm asking the minister to show some leadership. The minister had shown leadership in the fall by taking the group home away from the proponents under the auspices of doing a better thing, a real thing. So, I beg to differ with the minister; he does micromanage.

Let me also say that the safety concerns identified included concerns about staff training, the number of staff on duty and the staffing requirements to cover all the shifts. The safety audit made it clear that increased staffing was absolutely necessary. These are not new words for the minister.

Has the staff at 16 Klondike been increased, and how much more is it costing the government to run this program directly?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I gather that the members opposite don't get the message. This has been a long-standing problem with 16 Klondike. It is obvious that the government of yesterday did not resolve the issues - three and a half years in government and they did not resolve the problems. We are in office for one year - almost one year - and we are doing something about it. We've already done something about it within that year.

So I don't know if it's guilt or whatever, but I'm not sure what kind of message the member here is trying to give to the public. I know that we have dealt with the issues. We don't move into situations without looking at what the consequences are going to be.

My understanding is that there's a training program. The selection process for picking employees to work at this is at the highest level that we can obtain. If former employees don't get jobs, then obviously they didn't have the skills that were needed in order to deal with the situation. It is all done fairly through the Public Service Commission applications. These are not hand picked or sole sourced, as some might say. It's done using the public approach.

I think it's very important that we put all the facts on the table.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister can stand there and blame the government of yesterday, but it is the leaders of today, of which the Minister of Health is one. Yes, I am pointing out and identifying problems and giving concrete suggestions, and it does seem that the minister does his infamous duke-out, which the minister loves to do - "grandstaging" he calls it.

I've already mentioned the staff turnover. Surely the minister must understand that stability and consistency are some of the most important things to our young people. And these are young people whose lives have been very, very disturbed. It takes a long time to gain the trust of young people when they've been shunted from one residential setting to another - in some cases, 42 times, as you have heard before, in 16 short years, Mr. Speaker. A lot of them have never experienced unconditional love from anyone.

High staff turnover has a very serious impact on the ability to maintain -

Speaker:      Order please. Question please.

Mr. Keenan:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. High staff turnover does have a serious impact on that.

So, I would like to ask the minister this: what is the minister doing to address concerns about hiring, training and keeping qualified group home workers employed? What is the minister doing?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:     I think the number one issue here is ensuring that you hire the most competent staff that you can. I think that's number one, Mr. Speaker. I think number two could be empowering that staff to be owners of the program, looking at how the future should unfold. Number three is working with all of the partners, which includes caregivers, parents, family, and resource people utilized in helping young people like this.

But for me, again, that's kind of what I'm doing. I'm kind of micromanaging here. I'm saying what I would have done as a person who was right down there, working on the front line. That's not my job. But those are the kinds of things our department is doing. They are very resourceful and competent people and, as the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes stated, these are very difficult children. They wouldn't be in this situation if they didn't have many problems. So they bring many problems to the situation. So obviously it takes day-to-day planning with these young people because they're up and down all the time. The longer we keep this in the public light, the longer it takes to settle down and get on with the job of healing. I'm not sure what message the members opposite are trying to present here.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister can stand on his feet and say all the politically correct words that he'd like to say. He can talk about empowerment; he can talk about healing; he can talk about working with partners. But for goodness' sake, when is it going to start? It has to start at some point in time.

Now, a concern that has come to my attention is that female staff - especially female staff - are finding it difficult to cope at 16 Klondike. The word in the street is that the residents - the residents - are running the show. So is the minister aware of this problem, and what has the minister done to address it, other than the rhetoric of empowering, healing and all of those politically correct words? What is the minister doing?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      My understanding is that the member opposite has more information than I have. It's a bit like the report that the Member for Klondike had before I even got it. I don't know how the Member for Klondike got the report, so I present the same kind of response to the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes. He has got more information than I have. I have not heard that. What I am hearing -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Well, the Member for Klondike says that it is not hard. Again, one of the rude comments that the Member for Klondike likes to make. We are trying to raise the decorum here in the House - that is not the way to do it.

The important part, Mr. Speaker, is that we believe, with our staff, that we have made substantial gains in trying to gain the trust of very troubled youth. We are working with our professional staff to bring about change. That change won't happen overnight. Now, if the members opposite think that just because we have taken over the program, that everything is cured, then they are living in another Disneyland. Mr. Speaker, it takes time; it takes energy; it takes professionalism. It takes members from the opposition to understand that these are very fragile people. So every time you bring up the issue, it makes their job much more difficult. I am disappointed in the members opposite, that they believe that this is a way that they are going to attack a problem.

Question re: Parks, designation of land tracts

Mr. Jenkins:      I have a question for the Premier. Of major concern to resource industries and businesses in the territory, is the future disposition of Yukon land. Currently there are three national parks in the territory, a fourth being created in the Kluane game sanctuary, and a fifth being proposed for Wolf Lake, near Teslin. Now, added to that total are the three territorial parks, settlement land for Yukon First Nations and the Tetlit Gwitch'in of the Northwest Territories, as well as five special management areas yet to be created under land claims. There are also 16 more protected areas having a minimum size of 5,000 square kilometres each. I estimate that well over 50 percent - and perhaps as much as 70 percent - of Yukon land area will be withdrawn from development.

Speaker:      Order please.

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

Point of order

Speaker:      Order please. The government House leader, on a point of order.

Ms. Tucker:      There's a provision in the Standing Orders to prevent the use of props.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      I find there is a point of order there. Props are not to be used in the House. I ask the member to please conclude.

Mr. Jenkins:      I just have a piece of information to send over to the minister, Mr. Speaker. I'm tabling that information.

Does the Premier agree that this massive withdrawal from Yukon lands is cause for concern?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, what I will wholeheartedly agree with is the fact that the member opposite is not only out of order in his use of props, but the member opposite is out of order in his facts and out of order in his assessment and interpretation of what he considers to be the facts.

The member has failed to appreciate not only the Standing Order with respect to props, but the member has failed to appreciate the fact that we also have a rule regarding anticipation and we have a very clear understanding among members in the House.

Perhaps if the member would put some time and effort into his legislative procedure and attending SCREP and the business of this House, I'd be pleased to debate with the member opposite. I'm looking forward to discussing with the member opposite the Yukon protected areas strategy, which is what he's getting at, and this government's economic development agenda, which is also very strong, as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development also outlined at noon today.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, the minister once again has failed to answer the question. I was referring not just to the protected areas strategy but the total amount of land being withdrawn from the land base of the Yukon - all categories of land. I suspect it's over 50 percent; perhaps as much as 70 percent of Yukon land will be withdrawn from development.

Does the Premier agree that this is, indeed, cause for concern?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is making assumptions. The member opposite is fear-mongering. And the member opposite is, once again, not doing his research. His very question abandons his party's support for the settlement of land claims. I guess they don't support the settlement of land claims. He has abandoned his former leader's support for the Yukon protected areas strategy, including the Whitehorse mining initiative.

The poor member opposite really doesn't know where his party stands on any of these issues. Our party, on the other hand, is very clear. We have been crystal clear in our support for the settlement of land claims, which includes the negotiation of special management areas. We have been crystal clear in our support of the protected areas strategy, and we have been absolutely clear - in fact, champions - of not only the mining industry, the forest industry, the oil and gas sector, and the tourism industry, as well - true champions of economic development in the territory. And, Mr. Speaker, we're proud of it.

Mr. Jenkins:      Once again, the Premier has failed to answer the question. The question, once again, to the Premier: it's estimated that as much as 50 percent - or maybe as much as 70 percent - of Yukon land will be withdrawn in one form or another. The Yukon Party does support the protected areas strategy and the settlement of land claims - all of those issues that the minister is hiding behind. The question once again has not been answered. Can the minister put a figure on how much land, in total, is going to be withdrawn from the Yukon's land base? Is it 40, 50, 60 or 70 percent? How much is it?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, the member is hiding behind some hypothetical mathematical equation. He's hiding the fact that he doesn't really support the settlement of land claims, including the negotiation of special management areas. He really doesn't support the Yukon protected areas strategy and the philosophy behind it, and the Whitehorse mining initiative. He really doesn't support those things, shown by his very question and by the very fact that he fear-mongers about these initiatives.

He doesn't support the fact that this government has made strong strides in developing our economy. We have provided employment and worked with people and various sectors of our economy in creating jobs. And we're doing that without losing support, without giving up on working toward settling land claims, and without abandoning the protected areas strategy. We are doing this in a balanced, fair manner, and we will continue to do so, in spite of the fact that the member opposite does not support this.

Question re:  Yukon Act amendments, Crown in right of Yukon

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, once again, to the Premier - she has failed to answer the last question. Let's try again. The present proposed Yukon Act amendments are predicated on the long-held federal Liberal position that the Crown in right of Yukon does not exist. I'm aware of at least three legal opinions that prove that the federal Liberal position is wrong.

Now, the consequences of the federal Liberal position are severe, in that the position of Commissioner is the equivalent of a Lieutenant Governor representing Her Majesty in Yukon and owning the Yukon territorial land and resources - are all being denied. Now, under the Constitutional Questions Act, the Yukon government can refer the Crown in right of Yukon issue to the court of appeal for consideration. A favourable ruling by the court of appeal, which in all probability is very likely, would completely undermine the federal Liberal position and put Yukoners in the driver's seat in formalizing the role of Commissioner and allowing Yukoners to own their own land and resources. The Yukon has everything to gain and nothing to lose by such a ruling.

My question to the Premier: will she now seek a reference from the court of appeal on behalf of Yukoners on this very important issue, the Crown in right of Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I find it interesting that the members opposite have grown so close for several questions. The member opposite has a problem in that he reviews a legal opinion, and clearly, despite this new close relationship, he doesn't have anyone to bounce ideas off, because he would realize that his question is not only extremely convoluted, but it has been answered several times in this Legislature. The answer that I gave the member last time we were in the session and the time before and the time before, and the answer given by the previous Government Leader to the member opposite's question was, "No" then, and it's "no" now.

Question re: Shelter for homeless, agreements with hotels

Mr. Keenan:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition. I have another question for the Minister of Health and Social Services, if I may. Now, the government recently closed the transient shelter at the Sarah Steele Building and they contracted some local hotels to provide rooms for those without a place to stay. Now the justification was that it would cost much less to contract out than to provide the service. So, now I would like to ask if the minister, based on the Premier's answer, would just move a little closer to an answer.

I would like to ask how many local hotels have agreements with government and how long do those agreements run for?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      At this point we have two hotels that I know of: one is for mothers and children and one is for men. These contracts are for one year.

Mr. Keenan:      I think the minister just proved that, when the minister wants to, he can move a little closer to an answer and I certainly appreciate the answer - the first one, I think, this session.

The transition shelter provided more than just a bed. It also provided support services, including behavioural guidelines and a degree of supervision. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a downtown hotel is not in a position to offer this kind of support, so let me spell out my concerns.

Without guidelines, without supervision, abuses can occur and do, and I understand that some of the clients are using these rooms as party palaces. One person gets a room, others throw in some money, booze is added to it, and you've got an instant boogie right there. That's what's happening at this point in time.

So, I would like to ask what guidelines are in place to ensure that transition shelter clients are not abusing the system now that it has been moved out of the government facility?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      It's a much deeper problem that just having a shelter. We're talking about adults, Mr. Speaker, and if adults want to behave other than they should, then obviously, if they're doing it in a public place or in a building owned by someone else, it won't be acceptable. They won't be staying there. Why should that behaviour change? We're talking about adults, so to think that we have to supervise adults in order for them to behave so they can stay in a certain residence isn't solving the problem. This is a major problem.

Homelessness is a major problem. Having a stop-gap shelter wasn't solving the problem, and when you're paying close to $600 per individual for every night they stay in the shelter, it's obvious that that wasn't cost-effective at all. The costs have gone from $250,000, Mr. Speaker, to over $450,000, and the usership has gone down. It's very obvious that it's not just having a facility; there's more to it than meets the eye here. We as a society have to deal with the real problem that's causing it.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I asked about guidelines. I asked what guidelines were put in place, and the minister has got to be able to dodge that, too. He gives me a lecture.

Well, I spent six days with the minister in this House, I believe it was, talking about it. The minister says that it's deeper than you think. Well, probe it. The member is the Health minister.

Now, in some situations, it has got so far out of hand that some of the hotel operators are seriously rethinking their agreements. I take it that the minister doesn't know that. They are concerned about the impact of some of the actions of these clients whom they have as their guests, especially with the tourism season coming.

I would like to ask the minister again: what guidelines are in place and what is the minister doing to ensure that people who need temporary shelter have a place to stay, but that the hotel owners do not face a loss of business because of their arrangements with government?

Now, there is a whole bunch of questions in there. One answer would be adequate, I guess.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, that's right. They ask one question, but there are a whole bunch of questions. That's typical from the members opposite. They never have one question. There are always about five of them in the one question.

The important part of this is that, I guess, if we're serving as babysitters - if that's what the member opposite is saying - then we should continue doing that, even though it's costing us $600 per individual. I guess money means nothing to the members opposite. But when we have a health care crisis on our hands here, with fewer doctors and fewer nurses, those are important issues, as well.

I think the important part of it is that the member opposite seems to know more about this than I do. Obviously, whether it's true or not, I'm not sure. At this point, I have not heard that. If hotel owners are reconsidering, I haven't heard that, either. I would hope that if things don't work out, then we have to look at other ways of doing it. So far, that hasn't come to my desk. Obviously it has gone to the member opposite's desk and they are raising the alarm. I don't see any alarm. Is that fear-mongering again? Or is that making a problem where there is no problem?

Question re:  Drug and alcohol programs

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister has just stood on his feet, on a televised program, and insulted people out there. Mr. Speaker, I am asking where the leadership is.

Yesterday the minister said that government is an absolute last resort. Today he says that we are babysitting. That is absolutely appalling - appalling, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the department is in the midst of creating a new alcohol and drug secretariat. They have moved the transient shelter. Can the minister tell us what the current uptake is in the detox program and how that compares with the previous years? Please, just a simple answer.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:     I think that it is appalling that the member opposite is the one who is talking about having more supervision. We are talking about no supervision. These are adults. Adults can stand on their own two feet and do their own thing. So the member is blaming me for saying that we talk about babysitting. That is exactly what we got out of. That is not the role of government. We are an agency of last resort.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Now, the Member for Kluane says, "Who is your babysitter?" I guess that the Member for Kluane always has an answer for everything but, unfortunately, it's an answer that never leads anywhere.

The important part is that we are trying to do what is right. We are working with our partners in trying to do what is right. We are definitely going to promote what helps people to become equal with all of us, and putting them into situations where we are obviously controlling their environment isn't giving them that equality. So obviously that's hopefully what we are moving toward.

Now, if it's a much deeper problem - which I said homelessness is - then we have to look at that issue. It is not government that is going to solve the problem; it is going to have to be the community.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out issues. I am doing my job, and obviously I am doing a better job as a shadow Cabinet minister than the minister is doing as minister - and he's making the extra $26,000 a year for that position.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as I continue to do my job there are a couple of issues here. I'm asking for guidelines for the businesses, so that they might be able to accommodate people. I'm not blaming anybody, or asking for blame; I'm asking for leadership.

Now, when we were in government the Liberals were extremely critical about the way we were addressing alcohol and drug problems. Now, I have heard that trained counsellors have been laid off and offered jobs such as janitors and landscape people in place of counselling positions. We have also heard that there are other staffing concerns. Will the minister confirm that there have been layoffs in the detox program?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Well, I guess there are a couple of things here that I have to comment on. Number one, is the extra $26,000 the real issue? I'm sorry but, you know, I happen to be on this side. I guess that's maybe why I'm getting that extra $26,000.

At least I'm working full time, trying to build for the future. If hotel owners are having difficulty, we have a contract with each of them. There are conditions in the contract that can be looked at any time, and obviously that will be done through the department. I would hope that that would be what the role would be. If they are experiencing problems at this point, when we're shortly into this new program, then obviously they want to react to it very quickly. So that would be my advice - go back to the department and look at what the real issues are here and what can be done about it. Hopefully we can solve and resolve issues, rather than grandstaging. I think it's very important that we resolve issues.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks about working full time, he speaks about the pride he has in what he has accomplished in less than a year. I'm asking for some of the results on the floor of this Legislature. And shame on the minister, because the minister can't bring forth results. The minister must hang his pants on the telephone wire at the end of the day.

Now, the executive director position was re-posted and that suggests that there were no qualified applicants willing to take on this position. This results in a delay, and that happened before there was even a captain to steer this rudderless ship.

So I'd like to ask the minister again: what is the game plan to find a qualified executive director and provide programming for those with alcohol and drug problems both here in Whitehorse in a residential setting and within the communities? Does the minister have an answer or a contingency plan as a backup?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I really appreciate a good question for once.

The first time around, we did have qualified applicants. So for the member opposite to say that we didn't, I'm not sure how that member arrived at that kind of decision. Obviously, the information wasn't correct. We had very qualified people. We just believed that it should be a little wider and a little broader, so we extended the time and hopefully had a broader cast of people out there, because we know that this is a very important job. And I appreciate the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes also stressing the importance of this role.

The layoffs - as the member mentioned in the last question, I didn't quite answer, so I'll answer it here. Yes, there have been some layoffs but they were all casual, auxiliary. They weren't permanent. Some of them are working in the alcohol and detox part of it. Others are being looked at for other positions, like we always do. We're trying to accommodate as best we can. We're hoping, within the next couple of weeks, to shortlist our applicants for the role of executive director and, probably in about four weeks, hopefully we'll be able to make an announcement.

I'm very pleased to hear that the members opposite are anxious to find out as well and really want to get on with this. So do we. This has been a long time in coming.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker:      Before calling opposition private members' business, the Chair wishes to clarify which motions are to be called. Yesterday, the leader of the third party, pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3) identified Motion No. 96 and Motion No. 44 to be called for debate today.

Motion No. 96, pertaining to posting government contracts of government corporations on the government Web site, appeared on the Order Paper first distributed this morning. Following the distribution of the Order Paper, the Clerk's office was informed by the third party office that the text of Motion No. 96, appearing on the Order Paper, was incorrect. The notice paper for April 2, 2001, had been referenced by the leader of the third party when identifying the motion to be called. A mistake had been made in the numbering of motions on that Notice Paper, as there were two motions numbered as 96.

The Clerk's office was informed that, when the leader of the third party identified Motion No. 96 for debate today, he did not realize that there had been a mistake in numbering and that the motion he meant to have called was, in fact, Motion No. 97, which is on the subject of the Yukon protected areas strategy.

The Clerk's office then produced and distributed a revised Order Paper with Motion No. 97 listed for debate, as the first item under motions other than government motions.

The Chair has reviewed the circumstances surrounding this situation and recognizes the end result as being unfortunate. The difficulty that arises is whether to insist that the leader of the third party proceed with a motion that he did not intend to call or to have a motion called that, because of the short notice, some members may not be prepared to debate.

In this case, the Chair feels that, in light of the rule that provides the leader of the third party to call a motion of his choice and that the misunderstanding about which motion was identified was clearly not the fault of the leader of the third party, it is appropriate to substitute Motion No. 97 for Motion No. 96 and to permit it to be called today.

The Chair hopes the members will not have been too greatly inconvenienced with these events and thanks them for their understanding.

Opposition private members' business.

OPPOSITION PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Clerk:  Motion No. 97, standing in the name of Mr. Jenkins.

Speaker:      It is moved by the leader of the third party -

Order please. I'd ask the members to please take their seats while the Chair has the floor.

It is moved by the leader of the third party

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the five-point plan put forward by the resource users coalition group to correct the deficiencies in the Yukon Protected Areas Strategy should be adopted by the Yukon Liberal Government and include the following provisions:

(1) give the secretariat supporting the Yukon Protected Areas Strategy independent status so that it is not tied to either the Department of Renewable Resources or the Department of Economic Development,

(2) conduct full scale assessments of the economic impacts of protecting a particular area in addition to the full scale environmental assessments that are currently being done,

(3) establish a cap on the total amount of area that can be protected under the strategy,

(4) guarantee access to land that may be blocked through the creation of a protected area, and

(5) create no more protected areas until the completion of the seven outstanding Yukon Indian Land Claims Agreements.

Mr. Jenkins:      This motion, together with the motion on Yukon's offshore boundaries, are two of the most important motions this House will probably debate during the current government's term in office. Unfortunately, the Yukon protected areas strategy has become one of the major obstacles preventing the development of the Yukon economy.

It is largely responsible for the economic depression that the Yukon now finds itself in. We only have to look on either side of our borders to see what is transpiring.

In Alaska, we see a booming mining industry, dominated by Canadian mining companies with capital raised on the Vancouver and Toronto stock exchanges. The names Cominco and Teck, are but two. And last year the mining industry in Alaska, at some $1.3 billion - and those are real dollars, U.S. dollars - contributed greatly to their economic well-being. Also, oil and gas activity in Alaska is going on at a feverish pace. And the First Nations there are involved in the process at all levels, as suppliers of equipment, skills and trades of numerous types. But that industry is contributing greatly to the wealth of that state.

In the Northwest Territories, we have a similar type of situation. We have a booming mining industry in the Northwest Territories; we have a booming oil and gas industry. In fact, one only has to travel between here and Dawson City to see the number of trucks that are travelling the Dempster Highway, transporting the equipment necessary for the oil and gas exploration companies, to recognize the value and the potential that they are currently enjoying.

There is a shortage of skilled labour in all categories, both in Alaska and the Northwest Territories. In fact, the Northwest Territories is currently lobbying for skilled workers to come to their region. There are jobs, jobs, jobs, as the Minister of Tourism so capably puts it. But those jobs are elsewhere. They are in the Northwest Territories, Alberta and northern British Columbia. And as I look around this House, we all know that many, many Yukoners have departed the Yukon, either permanently or temporarily, seeking employment in these other jurisdictions.

That comes about largely because this government doesn't have any firm, concrete policies as to how much land is ultimately going to be withdrawn and where it is.

The other concern is the process. If we want to look specifically at the protected areas strategy, which is the subject of this motion, we find that the government has interpreted it considerably differently than what was originally intended.

If we look back to when the Yukon Party government signed on to the protected areas strategy shortly after it took office, it was based on the concept of multiple use, and it was no threat whatsoever to the Yukon economy. How times have changed, Mr. Speaker - and how governments change the whole philosophy and concept of a program.

Under the NDP, it was altered and changed. Now, the Liberals are having their kick at the cat. Until such time as they conclude the protected areas strategy and where and when land is going to be withdrawn, we are in uncertain times.

We only have to look at the makeup. Whether there be 28 or 29 members who sit on this committee, Mr. Speaker, there is not equal representation from the resource extraction sector, the business sector and the environmental sector. The makeup of the committee is weighted very, very heavily in favour of the environmental sector. Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of the problem. Until we have equal representation at the table to deal with the matter before us, it's not going to gain wide acceptance.

We look forward, and look at what has happened, Mr. Speaker. The concept of multiple use has been lost and the protected areas strategy has now become a mechanism for creating a vast number of no-development parks of at least 5,000 square kilometres each.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to circulate what was referred to earlier as a prop. It certainly isn't a prop. It is a map of the Yukon, and if the minister wants to refer to it as a prop, he certainly may. But it spells out the land mass that has been withdrawn in one form or another. There's a copy of that map for each and every member.

It lays out the lands withdrawn from mineral exploration and forestry, the private lands that are withdrawn from forestry, the proposed national parks, the protected areas, the special management areas, as well as the original national and territorial parks or wilderness preserves, the special management areas, the interim protected lands and the Yukon First Nation settlement lands, as well as the settlement lands from Yukon First Nations and Tetlit Gwich'in the category B or fee simple lands.

Now, based on the total land mass of the Yukon, with these two categories alone - the national and territorial parks or wilderness preserves, special management areas, interim protected lands, settlement lands for Yukon First Nations and Tetlit Gwich'in and category B or fee simple lands - we are protecting 22 percent of the land base here in the Yukon.

Then we look at the proposed Wolf Lake national park, which is just a study area. We know full well that the study area will, in all probability, ultimately end up being the park area. We are looking at the future protected areas, some 13 of them that will come into existence at 5,000 square kilometres each. And there are the possible future special management areas, an additional five, at 3,000 square kilometres each. We start looking at highways, secondary roads and tote roads, and they are just a small, small portion of the land mass of the Yukon.

This is a significant amount of the total land here in the Yukon that will be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon will only be able to sustain a fraction of today's rapidly depleting population, because there will only be one industry left in Yukon to sustain the Yukon economy, which will be our visitor industry. You will probably not be able to enter in, fly over or step on or boat through a lot of these areas. They will be completely inaccessible.

For a lot of these lands, we will become the keeper of the gates for the federal government, as we are with Kluane - the keeper of the gates.

One only has to look at the federal parks that have been created in the Northwest Territories and the rating that the various environmental groups provide to them. It's interesting to note that the parks that have the least amount of visitation are rated the highest from the environmentalists. Now, what is that saying to us? What is that saying to us, Mr. Speaker? All we are doing is creating a preserve for the Gore-Tex-clad people from the south who might be the last few who have the dollars in their $100-a-pair jeans to be able to travel up this way and visit these areas. That appears to be very much the case.

We have to be able to use the land base of the Yukon in its traditional manner and for resource extraction. We have to be able to undertake resource extraction in an environmentally safe and friendly manner. And the resource extraction industry today has demonstrated that that can be done, will be done and must be done. The way we are headed, as I outlined earlier, the only industry that we will end up with is our visitor industry. Mining, forestry, oil and gas, agriculture, construction, and even outfitting and trapping will be the way of the past.

Our grandchildren will only be able to read about it. And, if we look at all of these industries - the mining industry - the mining industry is the reason why the Yukon was established as a distinct territory of Canada. The mining industry has contributed significantly to the economic well-being of the Yukon for almost 100 years.

Today it could still be a contributor to the economic well-being of the Yukon, but it won't be, because this government and the previous government have scared away all the miners, all the mining exploration, virtually, and the mining companies. It is not because, Mr. Speaker, we do not have known, proven reserves. Indeed, we have mines that have gone through the permitting process. They can go into production, but they won't go into production because there is no incentive for the owners of these mines to put them back into production, given all the hoops they'll end up jumping through, and the uncertainty surrounding the permitting process and the production process that still prevails.

You never know, Mr. Speaker, when there's going to be an injunction slapped on the mine owner by one of the environmental groups for any one of a number of reasons.

The environmental groups will always be insisting that not enough has been done, the process hasn't been followed and the mine shouldn't be allowed to go into production. That's just one sector of our economy.

If we look at the forestry, one only has to go back in history to when the miners first arrived. Wood from Yukon forests was the main construction material for all the buildings, and a great deal of the watercraft were cut from Yukon forests. The main method of heating - in fact, in many, many cases, the sole method of heating - was wood.

There are pictures taken along the Yukon River because the sternwheelers burned tremendous amounts of wood on their passage between Whitehorse and Dawson, and Dawson and Whitehorse, and between Dawson and St. Michael's, out on the Bering Sea. And the amount of wood that they burned was tremendous - year after year after year. Pictures were taken along the Yukon River of tremendous swaths of land where the timber was removed for construction, for firewood, or to make steam on the sternwheelers.

Yet, today, just a few decades later, anyone travelling the Yukon River would deem it to be pristine wilderness. And yes, you can still find traces of habitation in various areas - some well-preserved by the First Nations, the Government of Yukon and the federal government - but, by and large, in the past we have used a tremendous amount of Yukon timber. It has maintained our lifestyle, powered our transportation systems, and yet we travel the rivers today and hardly notice that that has taken place.

Mother Nature has picked up and we do have sun and rain that allow things to grow. There must have been some Liberals running around the forests, Mr. Speaker, because the other necessary item is the fertilizer. I'm sure some of the suggestions coming from the Liberal government have aided the growth of the forests here in the Yukon.

If we look at the oil and gas industry, we have producing gas wells in southeast Yukon. Just over the border in the Northwest Territories, there is one of the largest recent finds of gas by Chevron Canada. That natural gas surely doesn't stop at the Yukon-N.W.T. border, Mr. Speaker. That gas field is known to extend into southeast Yukon and that's probably the easiest gas to tap and bring into production that exists in the Yukon and it begs the question: why isn't that being undertaken and why hasn't that been done? Well, it's because of uncertainty. The industry is uncertain to a great degree as to what's going to transpire with respect to land tenure and, until those areas are addressed, not only the oil and gas industry is staying away - yes, they'll come in, do a little seismic, cut a bit of line, recognize that there is potential, there is oil and gas. We know that, Mr. Speaker.

In the 1960s, Eagle Plains was drilled. Wells adjacent to Old Crow have been capped and purchased from their owners in order to settle the claims with the First Nation in Old Crow.

That gas, or that oil, could have been piped as readily into the community and become a source of revenue for the First Nation residing there, as well as provide heat for their buildings and structures for a large part of the year.

The opportunities were made known to other First Nations across the north. One only has to look at Inuvik today, where the Inuvialuit have taken over the gas and have put in a major gas distribution system in that community, and they're deriving economic benefits from supplying gas to Inuvik.

We only have to visit Barrow, Alaska, Mr. Speaker. And it's interesting to note - the first time I was in Barrow, I didn't understand a lot of the system around town. The runway is just a few feet above sea level, and I would look out at these houses, and I'd look at what the U.S. call 55-gallon barrels spread out and a pipe laying across. You go down the street and you come to an intersection, and the pipe goes up in the air, across the street and down the other side. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out what all this piping was for.

It was a natural gas distribution system. It has since been buried. The North Slope's Barrow, which is controlled by the First Nations who reside there, own and operate the system, and they are deriving tremendous economic opportunities from their involvement in this initiative.

Also, when Prudhoe Bay went into production, there was a shuttle service initiated, not only between Anchorage and Prudhoe, but between Barrow and Prudhoe, so that the North Slope Barrow residents could gain meaningful employment in the oil extraction, production and pumping companies involved in delivering oil through the Alyeska pipeline and to the south. So, there are opportunities for everyone.

Furthermore, the State of Alaska has seen fit to take the royalties that they have derived from their oil and gas industry and put them into a permanent fund. Now, that permanent fund has allowed that state to be in a position today where no one in the state pays state income tax. They pay federal U.S. tax, but they do not pay state income tax. In fact, annually, every permanent resident of the State of Alaska receives a dividend cheque. Last year, that dividend cheque amounted to some $2,000 for every man, woman and child who is considered to be a full-time resident of that state.

Now, what's wrong with this picture? The Yukon could be in virtually the same position. We could be in a position where we do not pay territorial income tax. In fact, if we take the royalties that we currently have from oil and gas and develop them further, those royalties could go into a permanent fund here. If you keep the political hands off it, set it up properly and don't let the politicians meddle with it, it will probably accrue benefits for all Yukoners. What is wrong with the government sending out a cheque to each and every Yukoner once a year? There is nothing wrong with that at all.

I don't think there is anyone here who would disagree with that concept. We have had it clearly demonstrated to us that it can work. But here, we are just seeing a minuscule decrease in our total tax payable as a consequence of a reduction at the federal level and the Yukon level. But more could have been done, but we have to have the economy here to contribute to the government to offset the amounts coming from Ottawa.

Let's look at agriculture, Mr. Speaker. If you look back a few years - around Haines Junction, Sunnydale, and the Watson Lake area, there exists tremendous agriculture potential. But it is much easier today to import virtually all our goods from outside than it is to grow them here. But there are opportunities for niche markets. And I am sure that many of the members in the House have visited that wonderful little tropical island in the Pacific, Maui. There are two products there that come from their agriculture: Maui potato chips, derived from the potatoes that are grown there, and Maui onions. Everyone thinks of pineapples and sugar. Yes, they are the mainstay, but the niche markets, where they realize a great deal more in income and put more individuals to work there, are these little niche markets derived from the agricultural area. Has anyone here in the Yukon thought of taking our potatoes, which grow in abundance, and making a potato chip, making a Yukon Gold potato chip? We have Yukon Gold beer. But there is an opportunity there that can be looked at.

But this government is still wandering through the trees, trying to come up with an agricultural policy. And try to get land for agricultural purposes here in the Yukon today, Mr. Speaker. In spite of our tremendous land base, it's nigh on to impossible.

Let's look at construction. Historically, construction has employed a great number of Yukoners, a lot of it seasonally. And this government could have done a lot more had they gone to tender earlier on the Shakwak project, if you want to use that as an example. The Mayo school could have kept a lot of Yukoners employed over the winter had the government had the foresight to award the contract when it should have been awarded - last year. A lot of the changes in the Mayo school are cosmetic. The basic floor plan has not been altered significantly. But we could have put Yukoners to work, had this government had the forethought to do so.

Look at outfitting. The value of outfitting to the Yukon today is very, very significant. Ask any of the outfitters around the Yukon what their major concern is, and today it is access to their traditional hunting areas. The game regulations - they live with them and abide by them, but access to the areas they have traditionally held is up-in-the-air questionable.

The next thing we'll be hearing from this Liberal government is, "Buy them out," but what does that accomplish, Mr. Speaker? It just destroys another industry.

They've been very successful in destroying industries - the mining, the forestry, oil and gas, agriculture, construction. There's a little bit of a bright light with trapping currently, Mr. Speaker, in that the price of fur has started to rebound and there's a demand for it currently.

But the fur cycle is probably on its way down, and the prices are probably on their way up. It would be nice if those two coincided with each other, so that the trappers could realize the benefits. If you speak with any of the trappers, they have concern over the encroachment on their traplines by various undertakings, and the uncertainty surrounding their lines for a number of reasons.

It's not my intention today to be pointing an accusing finger at other members, or laying blame. They're going to do that on their own. Everyone here knows how we ended up in the situation we are currently in today, but what I want to deal with are solutions. I would urge all members of this House to adopt a similar approach.

Mr. Speaker, we owe a debt of gratitude to the coalition of business and resource users for presenting us with a five-point plan on how to correct the current problems with the Yukon protected areas strategy. I'd like to remind the Liberal government that one of its major election commitments was to fix the protected areas strategy, not destroy it and use it for a purpose for which it wasn't intended.

The business and resource users coalition has presented a blueprint on how that can be done. Let me start this by dealing with the first point, of having an independent protected areas strategy not tied to either the Department of Renewable Resources or the Department of Economic Development. The key consideration, Mr. Speaker, is balance. How can there be an independent secretariat to implement the strategy if the Department of Renewable Resources is playing the lead role? Environmental groups would have a similar complaint to that of this coalition group of seven if the Department of Economic Development were to be given the lead role in implementing the strategy. Now, this recommendation should be a rather easy one for the government to fulfill, and it should go a long way to help restore the balance between the resource users, the business interests and the environmental groups.

While we're on the topic of achieving a proper balance between competing interests, I would also urge the government to apply the same principle to the YPAS Public Advisory Committee. By my count, the business and resource users groups are outnumbered by about three to one on that committee and had to walk away from the committee to draw attention to the fact that their voices were not being heard.

The second recommendation from the business resource coalition is to conduct full-scale assessments of the economic impacts of protecting a particular area in addition to the full-scale environmental assessments that are currently being done. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with a full-scale environmental assessment and a full-scale economic impact assessment for these regions?

They are of equal importance in the opinion of just about everyone except for the environmental movement. They just want to concentrate on the environmental aspects. And it is up to us to put forward a position that achieves a balance between the economic interests and the environmental interests. We have to be aware of both before a rational decision could ever be made - not just one aspect, but both aspects, Mr. Speaker. Once again, the key word is "balance". If comprehensive environmental assessments are done, what is wrong with comprehensive economic assessments? I can't stress them enough. That is what is being missed in this whole equation. And if you look at that recommendation, it is in keeping with the commitment of page 14 of the Liberal election platform, which reads as follows: "Reconvene the protected areas strategy committee to set standards for mineral and economic assessment that must be completed before land is set aside." That word is "must." It doesn't say "may"; it says "must." Why isn't that being done and why isn't that being followed?

I would add that this commitment is also more reason to ensure that the YPAS Public Advisory Committee has a proper balance between representatives of economic and environmental interests if this committee is going to set the standards for mineral and economic assessment.

You have to have a balance on the committee of the economic side of the equation and of the environmental side of the equation. This protected areas strategy would also be seriously flawed if there were only seven environmentalists sitting on the group and if there were three times that number from the resource and business community. Are we going to go through the whole equation again, Mr. Speaker, to change the balance? I don't think so.

Mr. Speaker, it must be recognized, however, that no matter how comprehensive economic assessments are, they will not completely indicate the true wealth of a region. There are limits on what knowledge and technology can actually accomplish. One only has to look at the number of prospectors who go over an area, time and time again. Then, all of a sudden, click, an ore body is uncovered, and those same grounds might have been travelled by numerous prospectors attempting to uncover an ore body of the same type. So the science isn't exact. There has to be some latitude.

Now, if we look back to the third recommendation, it concerns establishing a cap on the total amount of area that can be protected under the strategy. Mr. Speaker, time and time again in general debate and in Question Period, I have asked the Premier and the Minister of Renewable Resources just how much land is going to be set aside here in the Yukon.

I tabled today a land status map of the future of the Yukon. One only has to refer to that map to see what's left over. The government House leader said it was a prop. I'm not going to argue the point. It's a map that contains all of the land that has been withdrawn, for one reason or another, and the coloured map says it best. Unfortunately, at $4 or $5 a copy, I was only able to produce so many, with the meagre wages and salary package that I receive from the Legislature. My expense account was such that I wasn't able to allow for the printing in colour as I would have liked to.

Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps the most crucial recommendation of all - that a cap be placed on the total land. If we start looking at what is transpiring in other jurisdictions, and when the Yukon Party signed on to the protected areas strategy, it called for the protection of 12 percent of a jurisdiction's land area. That's what was called for back then. And Ontario was praised immensely for setting aside 12 percent of their land mass.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon has far exceeded that percentage already, with protected areas ranging from a low of 15 percent to 21 percent, depending on which criterion is being used.

Now, the protected areas strategy documents developed under the Liberal government call for the establishment of 16 more protected areas with a minimum area of 5,000 square kilometres each. That amounts, Mr. Speaker, to an additional 80,000 square kilometres over and above the land area already withdrawn. What it concludes is, today, well over 50 percent of -

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker:      Order please. The Minister of Renewable Resources, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do rise on a point of order. I do believe that the member opposite misspoke himself, and I wish to set the record straight, that the remaining 16 areas of interest -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Speaker:      Would the minister please continue?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I want to correct that he misspoke himself when he suggested that the remaining 16 areas of interest are all going to be 5,000 square kilometres. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is incorrect.

Speaker:      Leader of the third party.

Mr. Jenkins:      There's no point of order. There's just a dispute between members, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      Yes, I have to agree that, under the rules in the Legislature, there is no point of order, and it is a dispute of facts between members.

I ask the leader of the third party to continue, please.

Mr. Jenkins:      Once again, for the record, I will repeat that the protected areas strategy documents developed under the Liberal government call for the establishment of 16 more protected areas with a minimum area of 5,000 square kilometres each.

When you add it to what is currently parks and otherwise withdrawn in the Yukon, Mr. Speaker, what we have is well over 50 percent of the land mass of Yukon being withdrawn, and perhaps as much as 70 percent in total, when you factor in all the other areas.

There is no way that the Yukon can sustain an economy with this amount of land being removed from development activity. What's left of the Yukon economy will shrivel up as it's currently doing and most Yukoners will be forced to move somewhere else or at least derive their income from business activities from somewhere else, because there won't be much in the way of opportunities here.

During Question Period today when I asked the question of the Premier, I didn't receive an answer. The Premier went all over the map. But a cap on the amount of land to be protected under the strategy and all other processes, such as land claims or land use planning, is very much essential to create certainty in the resource investment community. On three separate occasions now, Mr. Speaker, mining companies have had their mining claims included in ever-expanding park boundaries. We only have to look at when Tombstone Park was created.

The Liberals were then in opposition. If we are going to create a territorial park, the federal Minister of Northern Affairs said that he didn't believe that mining claims should be allowed in parks, but it's a territorial park and if we wanted to do something about it, we could buy them out. He didn't agree with it, but he wasn't going to come to the table with any money. Because it was created as a territorial park, the Liberals, who were then in opposition, hammered on the NDP. They said, "Buy them out; buy them out; buy them out." Then the Liberals came into government. How times change.

In spite of inheriting a $60-odd million surplus coming into power, and in spite of inheriting an additional $42 million recently, it puts the resources or the reserves of Yukon at over $100 million - virtually 20 percent of their total budget.

Where is the initiative to buy out the claims in Tombstone Park? I haven't heard boo about it recently. And Asi Keyi Park - when that was first broached in the House, the Premier didn't know anything about it. She hadn't been briefed by her officials. We all know the reality surrounding that situation. But again, a great number of claims are contained within the boundaries of Asi Keyi Park. Where is the Liberal government's position of buying out the claims?

There have been three instances of this, Mr. Speaker, and as in that wonderful sport of baseball - three strikes and you're out. I guess the same could be said about resource investment here in the Yukon.

British Columbia and Yukon are now known as the two jurisdictions in Canada that do not support or welcome mining and resource investment. For a Yukoner, that spells disaster. And this Liberal government and the Premier, in her capacity as Minister of Economic Development, must do everything to turn this dire situation around. The Premier can start today by establishing a cap on the amount of land that is to be withdrawn under the Yukon protected areas strategy.

Now, the fourth recommendation from the coalition group of business and resource sector individuals recommends guaranteeing access to land that may be blocked through the creation of a protected area.

That's just common sense, and what is wrong with it? If we look at the current mining claims in either Asi Keyi Park or Tombstone Park, and we look at the position taken by the environmentalists, what incentive would one have to even come to the Yukon and stake claims in the first place? There isn't any, Mr. Speaker. That is why this fourth recommendation from this group is an extremely important and critical one.

If you look at the Yukon's topography, it's essentially a series of mountain ranges and river valleys. A small block of protected land could effectively block off a whole river valley or a mountain range. That is what appears to be happening. If you look at the other process that is currently underway - Yukon Indian land claims - and you look at the tremendous and considerable care and attention that was paid to ensuring that settlement land does not block off access to public land, you have to give credit to the First Nation negotiators and to the federal and territorial negotiators for coming and addressing some very hard, hard issues, and doing it in a reasonable and practical manner. That same care and attention should be paid when establishing a park or a protected area, and it is not. It hasn't been demonstrated by this government or the previous government.

I mentioned earlier the fiasco surrounding the creation of the Tombstone Park, Fishing Branch park and the new Asi Keyi Park. Parks are being created under land claims, and it makes little or no sense to be creating more parks under the protected areas strategy until the land claims process has been concluded.

Let's finish the land claims job first. I hear on the news today that we might even be close. I suspect the two that are remaining will be a long time in concluding; one probably in the southern part of Yukon, and the other one right here in Whitehorse. But the other seven land claims have really been hung up on federal issues, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can address that and do something about it, and hopefully we'll be hearing about the conclusions of some of these land claims here in the Yukon in the not too distant future.

But let's finish that land claims job. That's the highest priority. Then we know what we're dealing with in the rest of the Yukon. Currently, we do not know. There's a lot of speculation out there, but the actual maps for the remaining seven First Nation land claims are not really public documents. Some of the areas that have been withdrawn are known, but most are not. And until those have been firmly planted on a map so we can all see, we really are speculating about moving forward and creating more parks under the protected areas strategy, and that's what the minister is doing.

Let's go back to this five-point plan that was developed, not by me, but by a coalition of Yukon business individuals and resource-extraction individuals. I just have the privilege of presenting it. Someone else developed it, someone probably a lot more capable than I'll ever be. And that group has the ability, because it sat there for hours and hours and met among themselves, dealing with this very important issue, as to how to best address it.

The minister virtually insulted this group, saying, "They left the table; we're going to push on without them." Yes, we move on redundant.

Mr. Speaker, Yukoners deserve a straight answer from this minister. They deserve to know the government's position with respect to how much land and when there's going to be a balance struck on this committee created to overview and provide input into the Yukon protected areas strategy.

I want to make it abundantly clear where the Yukon Party stands on this five-point plan. We support all five points, and actually would have added a few more, but it's a plan; it's a game plan. I'm sure to some degree it was a compromise among their own members, so let's not compromise this plan further, Mr. Speaker.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the two other parties - the Liberals and the NDP - to go on record as to where they stand. A motion put forward on the floor of the House is exactly that - a motion. It sets out a position and this motion certainly does that. I would ask the Liberals and the NDP to either vote for or against this motion, rather than water it down by amending it. We'll certainly see where we stand, where all parties stand, with respect to this initiative by voting on this motion as it is.

I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to support for this motion. I know it's going to be a tough position to take for some members in this House on this important initiative, as they feel the current structure of it has more chance of success politically than it does any other way.

But let's look after the well-being and the interests of all Yukon, Mr. Speaker. Let's put partisan politics aside. Let's move forward together.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd love nothing more than to put partisan politics aside, and I think, by example on this side on several occasions, we're certainly and have certainly and are certainly prepared to do that. I do take exception to some of the comments made by the Member for Klondike, and I will respectfully try and respond to the member opposite on his motion.

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I do not support the motion.

With all due respect to the House, I would like to give a little backgrounder on where I'm coming from with respect to the protected areas strategy.

Most of my professional life has been devoted to environmental issues and working on wildlife, first with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans way back when, and then I did spend four years in northern Alberta on the tar sands project when Syncrude was starting up, as an environmental monitor on the project, but I did learn a lot. I learned a lot about resource extraction. When I was with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I learned how to get along with fishermen. And, in my professional career, I've tried to find balance, tried to indicate balance.

After my time with Syncrude, I was very fortunate and was very privileged to work with an international conservation organization called Ducks Unlimited.

Mr. Speaker, within Ducks Unlimited there is an incredible dichotomy of professions, namely one of biology and one of engineering. Usually those two professions are like water and oil, cat and dog, fire and water. The engineering profession is very fortunate that it can clearly determine how to get from point A to point B in a straight line. It's quite a precise profession. Biologists, on the other hand, sometimes can only dream of having those finite parameters to work under. Biologists work with ephemeral ideas, with concepts - "Well, if we do this, hopefully we'll get what we want."

But Ducks Unlimited, very successfully for well over 60 years now, has been working in a very cooperative fashion, and these two professions have managed to find common ground because they have a singularity of purpose, and that is the conservation, restoration and preservation of wetlands in North America.

I was with the organization for 20 years; 15 of those years were here in the Yukon Territory. Another part of the responsibility I had with Ducks Unlimited here in the territory was fundraising. Now, that was certainly an alien task and a very difficult task for me to do because it's asking for money and donations. It really was a struggle for me to do that.

But Mr. Speaker, for years and years and years, the organization depended solely on donations from corporations, landowners and, for the longest time, outside of governments.

Since then, they have partnered with governments on projects. They have spent hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on the restoration of wetlands, on buying lands, primarily in agricultural areas on the prairies. The point is, first of all, there are two alien jurisdictions - professions - that manage to get together and work cooperatively toward a common goal. So it can be done.

There are also the aspects of fundraising for conservation purposes. Again, Ducks Unlimited has been incredibly successful in that undertaking. Up here in the territory, for 15 years, we conducted fundraising programs and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. That was primarily from resource extraction, from businesses, from the public and from Yukoners. And I am very proud to say that the generosity of Yukoners shone time and time again on a national standard of fundraising for Ducks Unlimited because Yukoners, on a per capita basis, were incredibly, incredibly generous.

So, Mr. Speaker, the arguments presented by the member opposite do not bode well for the cooperative spirit that we have here in the territory, for the interests toward conservation preservation and respect for our wild places. During all those 15 years, I had to deal with individuals in a broad cross section of business - not only biologists or areas where I felt more comfortable, but I also dealt with business people, with oil and gas people, with resource extraction industries, with mining companies, with prospectors.

It was over that time, Mr. Speaker, that I established credibility here in the territory. When I ran for election I made it very clear to my constituents that I would be moving forward with the protected areas strategy, that we would try to fix and amend the strategy so that I could respect all those interests that I had been involved with in my other career, and I got elected because of the credibility that I had established.

The member opposite has deliberately, I believe, attempted to inflame, mislead -

Unparliamentary language

Speaker:      Order please. I would ask the member to withdraw the word "mislead", please.

Withdrawal of remark

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I will withdraw the word.

I think a lot of Yukoners, though, Mr. Speaker, believe in the protected areas strategy, and this government's responsibility is to re-establish a confidence that the government will do what it says it will do, and we are making best efforts to do that.

Unfortunately, sometimes walking out of this - I was walking out of here with a member, who has left the Chamber here, and he said to me, "Dale, don't take things seriously in there. It's just a fairy tale." He said, "Dale, what happens in there is not real." Well, Mr. Speaker, I take this job very seriously. I take responsibilities and accountability very seriously, and I try to be as upfront and honest as I possibly can, because the credibility I established with the former profession has to remain with me in this job.

Another comment that was made to me by another member as we were leaving the House was that, "Well, you're only a politician." Well, Mr. Speaker, something that we had said during the campaign was that we would try to change the public attitude toward politicians. It's a tough go, but we will keep true to that promise and keep true to the commitments that we made to our electorate.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of facts that I would like to present at this time, before I go into direct response to the member opposite. The proposed Wolf Lake national park, which he suggested is going to be, is not going to be. With all due respect for the Teslin Tlingit Council and the Teslin Renewable Resources Council, there has been a deference to the recommendations on the Parks Canada feasibility - the feasibility study on Wolf Lake national park.

So that, Mr. Speaker, with the support now of the government, we will not be moving toward making that a park. There are certainly areas of special interest in there, I won't deny it, and we will be respecting those special interest areas in consultation with the Teslin Tlingit Council, and also with the renewable resource council in the area, along with the locals.

So I just wanted to correct the record on that fact.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      No. Okay, just a further clarification for the member opposite, who just asked if the federal government killed it. No, it was at the request of the Teslin Tlingit Council, the Teslin Renewable Resource Council, and also with the support of conservation organizations in the territory.

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of protecting areas globally came to focus under the Brundtland Commission. There was a collective will, and the result of the Brundtland Commission was that, as a guideline, on a national basis, 12 percent of lands would be set aside for protection by whatever means. Here, in Canada, we take that to mean national parks, provincial parks and other protected areas that allow limited impact within the park boundaries.

In other jurisdictions in Canada, provinces see protected areas as an opportunity - as a clear opportunity. In other jurisdictions within Canada and the provinces, in Alaska and in the Northwest Territories, protected areas are created successfully, while respecting their populations, with resource users, business groups, et cetera. They are successfully created, each seeing the benefits, jointly and cooperatively, creating certainty. That's what these places now enjoy - the certainty. And in some provinces within Canada, the collaboration of the resource sector, other businesses and conservation organizations - the partnership - is working very successfully.

I do understand, very clearly, the apprehensions of those members of the group of seven who chose to walk away from the first set of the recent public advisory committee meetings, as well as the most recent set of meetings. I understand their apprehensions.

Their perception of the Yukon protected areas strategy is that it is an encumbrance on what they see as their land base use, their needs, their wants, their certainties. We will continue to listen to all Yukoners. That was a commitment that we made at the get-go, and that is a commitment that we will follow through on.

The Member for Klondike has suggested that I don't respect those members because they walked away. To the contrary, Mr. Speaker, there couldn't be anything further from the truth. The fact is that there was a process set up and there was a regrouping of the original group that put the protected areas strategy together. So there was a degree of respect when these members all came back together - and I do understand that there was a concern that the voices of the members of the group of seven would not be heard within the confines of the public advisory committee.

The truth is that if the members had stayed, it would have been the best opportunity for balance than would have happened when the original strategy was being designed. Their voices would have been heard because the mandate provided to the facilitator was that everyone would have an equal voice there, Mr. Speaker, and that all the concerns and wishes of the groups would be presented to Cabinet. That was the commitment that we made. So, it did get into a difficult manner, where we did have to provide to the public advisory committee, charging them with the responsibility to forward notions, ideas and suggestions directly to Cabinet, and respecting those people who are participating there.

I do get a little angry when the Member for Klondike suggests that there weren't other resource sector representations within the group. If I were any of those members within the public advisory committee hearing that from the Member for Klondike, I'd be quite upset and insulted myself, Mr. Speaker.

This government is challenged with moving forward on the protected areas strategy. The Premier and I and caucus will be moving forward with the strategy. We recently received the recommendations from the advisory group, and Cabinet will be reviewing and looking intently at those recommendations. We just received the recommendations, Mr. Speaker, and we have also offered that anybody who wants a copy of those recommendations is certainly welcome to them. We can provide them.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The Member for Klondike is chiding across the way, "What about us?" Certainly, Mr. Speaker, they are entitled to copies as well.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The Member for Watson Lake asks when. As soon as I can get a copy down here, Mr. Speaker, I'd be more than willing to give one to him.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The member behind me just asked why. That's a good question.

Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of the sensitivities on this issue. It is a difficult issue, and I believe in my heart, though, that the protected areas strategy has grown out of all proportion. It is being interpreted as this huge dragon that is not going to allow for economic development here in the territory. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Before we had the public advisory committee meeting come together, some of the issues that came up included ways of looking for and creating certainty. Some of the ideas that I heard - because I met with all those groups in my office, not just once but sometimes a couple of times or several times with some individuals. How can we create certainty? One of the areas and one of the ways, one of the suggestions that I continually heard was, "Just let us know where we can't go." So, Mr. Speaker, that was how the notion came up, that of the remaining 16 ecoregions that have not been represented yet.

Okay, we will indicate these just as areas of interest, meaning that there will be a circle on the map. We feel that that would be the smallest area that could represent that ecoregion. Industry would know where it was because it is an area of interest. If there were any apprehension by industry and if there were the biggest motherlode of gold under that area of interest, we would move it, because, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to find balance, as the Member for Klondike has suggested. We are trying to find balance.

We will afford and we will look for constructive and positive ways to listen to all Yukoners on this issue. We recognize that we have to be clear in our intent and our messaging about exactly what we are attempting to do, with full disclosure of where we're going and with full participation on the assessments and processes.

So, Mr. Speaker, I can't go along with the motion as posed, not even with amendments, unfortunately. It is virtually identical to a letter that I, the Premier and the department received from the group of seven. It is virtually the same.

What I would like to do now, Mr. Speaker, is, as the Member for Klondike did, go through each point in the letter.

Between the first set of public advisory group meetings and the second set, we actually listened. I was there for two days, and I listened to what the members of the representative groups and individuals who did stay had to say, and I listened intently, because I realized the seriousness and concerns that people have with respect to YPAS.

What I'd like to provide here is a response to the option number one contained in the member's motion. Given that the protected areas secretariat independent status is what the member is suggesting, it is to this end that we have now established a task group that will report directly to me and the Premier. That task group will be comprised of three deputy ministers: one from Economic Development, Renewable Resources and Community and Transportation Services.

The function of this group will be to oversee the future implementation of YPAS - they will be directly charged with that task - including the successful conclusion of all current YPAS review, which includes the identification of the areas of interest for the 16 remaining ecoregions, a process for identification of areas most suited to resource development. This group will also work with critical stakeholders charged to work directly with critical stakeholders - and those are all stakeholders who are impacted by the protected areas strategy - to ensure that their concerns and interests are met and to help ensure that the next time we create a protected area it is done right, Mr. Speaker.

At a working level, we have set up a management team comprised of two assistant deputy ministers - one from Renewable Resources and one from Economic Development - who will report to the task group directly. Their responsibilities are defined as follows: maintain ongoing relations with key stakeholder groups; participate in or lead all future public advisory committee meetings; provide overall advice and direction for the two-year identification project of areas of interest; coordinate the YPAS process with all other departments of government and with First Nations; seek advice, help and assistance as required; and oversee the preparation of maps clearly identifying all known land use interests, including areas of interest to conservationists and areas of interest to industry - and that is all industry. This group will also coordinate the protected areas strategy with other planning activities, such as land claims, forest management planning, planning for oil and gas exploration, planning for agricultural land use and other land use oriented businesses. The group will also coordinate the development of a process to review the YPAS after a five-year period.

I want to emphasize that the review will happen, because in actuality, the YPAS process has not been tested. I don't want to cast aspersions on the former government, but the true test of YPAS has not occurred.

We will be reviewing the process after five years. These are the fundamental aspects of the protected areas strategy, and this group will assist in the development of YPAS legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we will also combine the YPAS secretariat with the parks and outdoor recreation branch to form a new parks and protected areas branch, which will remain within the Department of Renewable Resources. This move will provide better continuity between the actual planning of protected areas and the development of management plans once a protected area has been established.

A resource development analysis will also be physically located within this branch as soon as possible, to make sure the issues important to industry are considered during the implementation of YPAS. I believe that this goes, in some length, to accommodating the wishes of the group of seven. What we have done has restructured with a task group - in summary, it creates a task group of three deputy ministers. It creates a working group at the ADM level that will be directly charged with keeping key stakeholders, other government agencies and other private sector agencies in the loop at all times. They will be responsible for gathering information and bringing it back.

I know there was a direct request to have the secretariat removed and created outside of government.

Mr. Speaker, to create efficiencies, I believe that it is best to have the task group, the working group and the secretariat moved into the parks and recreation branch, because they will be doing the final work on the protected area.

As we know, from when an area of interest is determined to when it becomes a protected area - if it becomes a protected area, I would like to remind the Member for Klondike - it's an 18-month to two-year process to go from area of interest to protected area. There are 11 steps that have to be followed during that process. There are three opportunities for direct input by the public, by interest groups, by resource users and by the mining industry during that process.

During that time, Mr. Speaker, there will also be full assessments done. I will elaborate on that a bit later.

The second thing that the Member for Klondike is asking for in his motion is for us to conduct a full-scale assessment of protecting a particular area, in addition to a full-scale environmental assessment. The protected areas strategy, if the Member for Klondike would just look it over, if he would just read the initial document, if he would read the technical papers - but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Klondike knows a little bit about a lot of things, just enough to scare the heebie-jeebies out of everyone.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Thank you very much.

The Member for Klondike just chirped, "It's better than knowing nothing about nothing." Well, Mr. Speaker, I could also put him in that category because that's exactly where he is most of the time.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated, the Yukon protected areas strategy already outlines the types of assessments that will be conducted, and a sampling of these assessments is as follows: the potential for increased tourism and recreation revenues; the potential impact of restricting mining, timber harvesting or hydro development; the potential impacts of other commercial activities; the impact on First Nation traditional lifestyles, including the economic and social values of subsistence activities; the potential for jobs and contract opportunities associated with establishing and maintaining a protected area; the cost to the public sector and the revenues that will be generated; the economic values of ecosystem processes, including maintaining healthy wildlife populations and fish habitat.

The economic impact will be considered, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad I'm having an opportunity to read this because I'm sure this is the first time the Member for Klondike has ever heard of this. I do welcome the opportunity to go on at length to make sure that he does get the message and, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I'll keep going. The economic impacts that will be considered include existing land and resource uses, existing third-party rights and interests such as outfitters and trappers; the need for industry to have access to resources, and that is something that has become clearer and clearer in the requests from those parties; the impact on local, regional and territorial economy; the distribution of economic benefits and costs; the short- and long-term impacts; the impacts on the economic stability and diversification of the region where the protected area is proposed; and the level or risk of uncertainty associated with identified impacts.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are taking into consideration a lot of what we have heard and are more clearly defining - and, as I said earlier, it is my job, it is the job of the Minister of Economic Development, to establish that confidence and to ensure that we follow through with the things that we say we are doing.

There are other considerations, such as social and cultural implications, that will be considered. They include impacts on public use, enjoyment and appreciation, impacts on First Nations and on First Nation traditional activities, opportunities for public education and interpretation, and something that always gets slipped and forgotten - the potential benefits to spiritual, cultural and mental health values.

It's equally important that the resource assessments that will be conducted are to include an examination of mineral, oil and gas values, marketable timber values, agricultural land values, tourism values, fish and wildlife values, subsistence values and hydroelectric power development values.

Resource assessments will be done at three separate times during the 11-step YPAS process.

In May 1996, the Member for Klondike's former colleague, the then minister Fisher, stated, "We want to make sure we get it right. That is why we are doing full mineral, oil, gas, cultural, heritage and wildlife assessments of areas before we withdraw lands and designate them as new parks. We want to be sure that when a new park is established in the Yukon, it will remain a park forever because we all have done our homework properly." Well, that is exactly what the principle is within the protected areas strategy. That is exactly what the recommendation was when the public advisory group put forward its technical papers on the protected areas strategy. That is exactly what is there, Mr. Speaker. So we have already followed through on a theme that was perpetrated by the Member for Klondike's former colleague. Quite frankly, I believe the Member for Klondike is doing and taking up a habit of the members of the official opposition; that is, namely, doing flip-flops.

Earlier today I heard the Member for Klondike speak quite eloquently with respect to National Wildlife Week. I know in his heart, somewhere in that heart of his - somewhere in the darkest, deepest recesses of his heart, Mr. Speaker - he does have a tinge of respect for habitat and wildlife. That is why he lives here. That is why he has lived here for so long. It has got to be for some reason.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Klondike is doing a flip-flop because earlier today - and I will admit, as my colleague, the Minister of Health and Social Services, does when the Member for Klondike gets something right the odd time - he did speak quite eloquently with respect to National Wildlife Week. As the Minister of Renewable Resources, I do appreciate that. But that eloquence, that understanding, is only let out at very few opportunities. He doesn't dare let it out too often.

But back to the assessments aspect, the assessments were good enough when they were in government, but they are not good enough now that we are in government. That's the flip-flop aspect, Mr. Speaker.

The third issue the member brought up is a sensitive issue. I'm not going to deny that. It's an issue that has been debated, right from the Brundtland Commission, through the protected areas strategies within the various provinces - and that is the issue relative to the cap. That is the total amount of land that can be protected under the strategy. He would like a finite number.

The idea of placing a cap on the amount of land that can be protected as a goal 1 protected area was carefully looked at during the development of the protected areas strategy. It was carefully examined through the public consultation process, and the protected areas strategy, in draft, did go through extensive public consultations. It was strongly rejected on the principle that the whole rationale for creating goal 1 protected areas is to have proper representation of each of our ecological areas.

And if we are to do this, Mr. Speaker, tying us to an artificial land cap that has no scientific basis was seen to be an unreasonable measure. No jurisdiction in Canada has placed a cap on the amount of land that can be protected. No one has put a cap on the land. British Columbia attempted to put a cap of 12 percent on it, but, over a year, they found that they had to get rid of it. They now use the 12 percent as a minimum, rather than a maximum amount of land that will be protected.

It is a difficult and contentious issue. I do not deny that. We know that in Alaska they have identified 30 percent of their land base.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I'm sorry, the Member for Mayo-Tatchun has just indicated to me that it's 40 percent. Great - 40 percent. They are still prospering over there. They are still working.

But I will tell you what happened over there. The land that was protected over there was done in concert and in cooperation with governments, private sector, conservation organizations, federal government agencies, the resource-based industries, mining. All of them, including the First Nations over there, got together and agreed that it was a good thing. It is a good thing, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that the Member for Klondike wants to portray the protected areas strategy as an ogre, creating unnecessary apprehension, because I don't feel that that's very appropriate at all.

With all due respect to the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, I would also say that part of the land that's protected over in Alaska also includes the ANWR, specifically the 10-02 lands, which are the calving grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd. So these values are recognized, Mr. Speaker.

They also create protected areas in the Northwest Territories. There is a large area that is protected over there, solely to protect a caribou herd unto itself.

But, Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Klondike continually rambles on about, these other jurisdictions are having success because there is a willingness to all meet at the table, to all respectfully listen to each other, but he refuses to listen - absolutely refuses to listen - because you know why? With that little bit of knowledge that he has about a lot of things - and a lot of things that he has no knowledge about, as he qualified earlier on - he just might learn something. He just might learn a little something, and heaven forbid we should have that.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the rationale behind the cap. I would take extreme umbrage at his flashing in front of the camera, because he's good at that. He's pretty good at the dramatics, flashing at the camera. He managed to flash at the camera. I must say that he didn't have the dramatic spiel of my colleague, and I do admire her. I admire her exuberance, her enthusiasm. I am inspired just thinking about her speaking. I just get so excited. I really do. I really do.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The Member for Klondike says she's the only one who is inspiring. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are a team over here and we inspire. I know the member opposite is lonely, being a party of one. I know he's lonely, but he's got neighbours there who are willing to take him in and who are very close by.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:     "Oh," he says. My gosh. Well, that's not what he said, Mr. Speaker, but I can't repeat what he said, because I'm sure you'll say it's unparliamentary.

So, I know he's lonely, I know he has lots of time to dream. I know he wishes he could be in a flock of greater than one. Just like that song says, Mr. Speaker, "One is the loneliest number". Isn't that good? That was right off the top of my head too. I'm getting good at this, and that has to be frightening.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, he suggested I was an old fish cop. Well, I'll take that as a compliment, really.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      And he continues to ramble on, Mr. Speaker, throwing accusations and insults across the floor, but he's pretty good at that.

I will continue to move on.

On the cap issue, this government and other governments want to keep their options open. Where I was leading with the cap issue, Mr. Speaker, and the props that the member so blatantly displayed, knowing that it was against the rules of the House, but then, he doesn't respect the rules of the House very often.

Mr. Speaker, he is suggesting that the 13 - well, actually, what he did was provide a map of all 23 ecoregions in the territory, represented by 5,000 square kilometre areas. On a point of order, I stood up and tried to correct the member but, then again, he chooses not to listen. He deliberately chooses not to listen. He would rather inflame; he would rather drive wedges. Our population is only 30,000 strong, Mr. Speaker. Surely to God we can get along better than what the Member for Klondike would project is the case.

But, he is wrong - categorically, undeniably wrong - in suggesting that the remaining 16 areas are all going to be 5,000 kilometres squared.

That is wrong, Mr. Speaker, wrong, wrong, wrong. But then he will get up right after and say what he says anyway. So I just want to get on the record that we will be responsibly looking at the remaining 16 ecoregions in full consultation with hunters, trappers, resource extractors, oil and gas, mining, outfitters. We will be looking at these areas where they are. We will continue to consult because that is what we said we would do, and we do what we said we would do.

So, Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong in suggesting that we are going 5,000 square kilometres on the remaining areas.

So having said that, it is certainly a principle within the government to try to define the smallest area possible that meets the needs, to set aside, in order to protect a representative sample of an ecological region.

It is also important to know that the ecoregions within the territory are quite diverse. That is why they are ecoregions. An ecoregion could represent a geological feature, such as Coal River Springs, and that is 20 square kilometres, Mr. Speaker - 20 square kilometres for a protected area. But then, of course, the Member for Klondike would probably not like to see that there. It is an incredibly unique geophysical feature here in the territory. He would just like to see it go. I have no doubt about that by the way he talks, the way he inflames and the way he incites lack of respect and all those other ditties that are a part of his character.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to try to identify those areas of interest to create certainty. I have full confidence that when those areas are put on a map and we consult about those areas of interest with others, they will say, "It's not that bad. Now we know where we can't go."

Those areas will be determined, taking into consideration what we've heard from the mining industry and oil and gas about excess and about the prospectors. We will be taking all that into consideration when we determine areas of interest. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I said that we would be creating 16 over the next two years. Once an area has been declared an area of interest, it takes another two years to become a protected area. If the member opposite chooses to inflame the public and mis... - I just about said an unparliamentary thing and I don't want to do that.

So, we will be identifying those small core areas where no development will be allowed. We admit that, Mr. Speaker. They are goal 1 areas. These areas will be surrounded by a larger buffer area where development can occur. That's another thing that the Member for Klondike continually neglects to provide by way of information.

We are open and accountable. We will provide all the information that we have available on how we conduct business. That's what we're doing with the protected areas strategy, Mr. Speaker. That's why I wish the group of seven would re-involve themselves: we need their input; we need their information and we need to hear their concerns. We need to incorporate their concerns. For all the reasons that they walked away, we want them there.

I do wish they would have been at the last session because I'm sure they would have heard, within that session, that a lot of the concerns that they put in the letter to me and the Premier are being addressed and were addressed by the members of the public advisory committee.

Mr. Speaker, the former minister within the Yukon Party's government, Mickey Fisher, said, "The Yukon government is working to meet its commitment to protect 12 percent of its areas by the year 2000." Well, if they were still in government, I doubt very much that we would have seen that, and I think that the debate would be similar with respect to the 12 percent.

Recently, the Member for Klondike said, "We have protected over 15 percent of the Yukon in parks and protected areas." So what's the problem, Mr. Speaker? What is the real problem? We have exceeded the Yukon Party's goal of only 12 percent. Does the member opposite want us to quit now, before we follow through on a commitment that his party bought into? They made a protected areas strategy, protecting 23 representative areas. The former leader of the Yukon Party, during the last election, fully committed to the unchanged principles of the protected areas strategy.

The Member for Klondike continually says that, at one time, there was going to be an allowance for activities within a protected area. Well, Mr. Speaker, when the protected areas strategy came out and the former leader of the third signed on - those principles haven't changed, Mr. Speaker. Only in the mind of the Membe