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

Mr. Kent:      Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Legislature to pay tribute to Youth Week, which will be celebrated May 6 through 12. Youth Week is a celebration of young people working to create a positive environment in their communities.

It all started in 1995 with a handful of events scattered throughout Canada. As of the year 2000, Youth Week broadened its focus to include the world, and that has continued to grow. Youth Week has received strong support from Canadian leaders such as Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Governor General Adrienne Clarkson.

Youth Week focuses on youth and the achievements of young people. It is important to recognize and acknowledge young people for their efforts and accomplishments. This week is set aside to allow time to do just that. It is a great opportunity for the business sector to show its support for young people and the community at large.

Young people need to be reminded of their accomplishments so that they have a better chance to succeed.

Youth Week focuses on the accomplishments, the talent, the drive and the initiative of youth. Our youth are an integral part of our society and while this one week focuses on their accomplishments, youth need to be reminded constantly that their efforts and achievements are bearing fruit.

This celebration also focuses on young people giving back to the community. It is their chance to pull together and show us what they're capable of. With that in mind, several events have been planned locally. Some highlights include the following: youth can ride public transit free all week with a free youth transit card; on Monday, an action plan meeting will be held concerning bullying; a street hockey tournament and barbecue takes place on Saturday, May 12, and the second annual Youth Achievement Awards will be presented May 12, as well. The cleanup of Riverdale and downtown is being coordinated by a group of young people on May 12 and 13. Mr. Speaker, these are but a few examples. There are many more activities going on throughout the week.

Monti Bourassa, of Bringing Youth Toward Equality, can be contacted at 667-7975 for the full calendar of events. Ms. Bourassa should be commended for all her hard work in organizing this week.

Mr. Speaker, next week is a time for youth to shine. It is all about support, acknowledgement and recognition. All of us in this Legislature and, indeed, all Yukoners should make best efforts to offer these whenever and however possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In recognition of World Press Freedom Day

Mr. McRobb:      I rise today on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to World Press Freedom Day. As legislators, we have a solemn duty to protect and preserve the system of parliamentary democracy, which is the cornerstone of Canada's social organization.

It is our duty to ensure that those of us who are elected to represent the citizens do so in an open, fair and democratic manner. In this matter of ensuring good governance, the mass media play a significant role. While not elected to public office, the media constitute another vital instrument for safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the public. It is their privilege and their responsibility to report and comment on any and all matters of public interest, without fear or favour.

It is significant that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is the one that guarantees freedom of speech. Our own Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that same right to our citizens.

In 18^th century France, society was divided into three estates. The first was the clergy, the second was the nobility, and the third consisted of the commoners, including the bourgeoisie, artisans and peasants.

Following the French Revolution a fourth estate emerged by tradition, if not in law. That fourth estate was the press. More recently, the electronic media have adopted the nickname "the fifth estate." Who knows? Perhaps the Internet will become known as the sixth estate.

In modern democracies we have come to accept the freedom of the press as a direct extension and expression of the freedom of speech. On the other hand, one of the very first acts of a totalitarian regime or of a military coup is to seize control of the mass media and curtail freedom of speech.

So today, on World Press Freedom Day, I would like to invite all members of this House to join me in paying tribute to the print and electronic media, which are, whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, our partners in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of those we are elected to serve.

Applause

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kluane has reminded us of a very important tribute. I would like to join with the member, as he invited us to do, and with all members of the Legislative Assembly - and most especially the former members of the media, who are now members of the Legislative Assembly - in saluting World Press Freedom Day.

From Aurora Boreale, the Tramway, the Klondike Sun, the Whitehorse Star, the Yukon News, CHON FM, CKRW and CBC, and all of the journalists who work throughout the territory, both freelancing and as part of their regular employment, we recognize the freedoms that you hold so dear, including the first row in the Legislative Assembly here.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the Member for Kluane and, on behalf of all members of the Legislative Assembly, salute the members of the media.

Speaker:      If there are no further tributes, I will proceed.

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      Order please. Before proceeding further, the Chair will provide a ruling on the attempt by the Member for Klondike to table road fragments during tabling returns and documents on Wednesday, May 2, 2001.

In the rules adopted by this House to govern its proceedings, Standing Order 11(2) sets out the order of the daily routine and provides the formal opportunity for any member of this House to table a document, and for ministers to submit legislative returns.

Standing Orders 37 and 38 provide more detailed guidance to govern the tabling of documents.

The Chair would draw the attention of members in particular to Standing Order 38(2), which states: "Any document presented to the Assembly by a member for the information of members may be tabled if accompanied by sufficient copies for distribution to all House Leaders and to the Table for placement in the in the working papers of the Assembly."

While the Chair recognizes that the Member for Klondike kindly provided sufficient pieces of road fragments for House leaders, the table and indeed all members, it must be stated that the materials presented by the member for tabling are not documents and therefore are not acceptable for placement in the working papers of the Assembly.

If there are no further documents for tabling, the Chair will proceed.

Are there any reports of committees?

Petitions?

PETITIONS

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling a petition containing the signatures of approximately 475 Yukon people. It's asking the Legislative Assembly to urge the Commissioner in Executive Council to immediately commission a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act into the policies, the procedures and the practices of family and children's services branch.

Thank you.

Petition No. 3 - received

Mr. Clerk:      Mr. Speaker and hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly: I have had the honour to review a petition, being Petition No. 3 of the Second Session of the Thirtieth Legislative Assembly as presented by the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes on May 2, 2001. This petition meets the requirements as to form of the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.

Speaker:      Petition No. 3, accordingly, is deemed to be read and received.

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Minister of Education should request that the Premier reduce the Executive Council Office travel budget for Cabinet ministers by $24,000 in order to provide sufficient funds to keep the Whitehorse Public Library open on Friday evenings and on Sundays.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Minister of Education should personally attend all of the 10 Whitehorse area school council consultations on capacity and enrolment in order to hear first-hand the concerns of the parents, students and the respective student councils; and

THAT this House urges the Minister of Education to reconsider his commitment to build a new Grey Mountain School in Riverdale until such time as the consultation on capacity and enrolment with the 10 Whitehorse area school councils are complete and these councils are in agreement with the minister's decision to build a new K-7 Grey Mountain School.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that Question Period is an important vehicle for bringing forward important issues for private members in this House; and

THAT the opposition party should be commended for allowing time in Question Period on May 2 for a government private member to ask a question; and

THAT this House recognizes that the opposition parties have wrongly accused the government of "muzzling" its backbenchers; and

THAT this House urges the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges to expand the length of and adjust the roster of Question Period so that government private members are given regular opportunities to ask questions in Question Period.

Speaker:      If there are no further notices of motion, we will proceed.

Are there any statements by ministers?

Before proceeding to Question Period today the Chair has a ruling on two points of order raised the previous day in this House.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      Order please. Before proceeding further the Chair will provide a ruling on the two points of order raised by the Member for Whitehorse Centre during yesterday afternoon's debate on the motion to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment.

Following the first quorum count yesterday, the Member for Watson Lake made an indirect reference to the absence of members, for which the Chair issued an admonishment to the member. The Member for Whitehorse Centre then stood on a point of order to suggest that the remarks of the Member for Watson Lake represented "a direct questioning and contradiction of the Chair's ruling."

The Chair has had an opportunity to review the Blues and finds that there is no basis for the point of order.

The Member for Whitehorse Centre also raised a point of order with respect to further remarks by the Member for Watson Lake, stating: "The Member for Watson Lake has just charged members from this side of bringing erroneous information to this House. Knowingly bringing erroneous information to this House is considered uttering a falsehood."

While the member did not say so explicitly, it is presumed that his point of order related to Standing Order 19(i), which states: "A member will be called to order by the Speaker if that member: (i) charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood." The Chair has had an opportunity to review the Blues and finds that there is no basis for the point of order.

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Ms. Netro:      My question today is for the Minister of Education. School enrolment is going down in Whitehorse. The minister is building a new school in his riding. Library use is going up. The library is reducing its hours. Can the minister tell us what is wrong with this picture?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I do believe that there are a couple of questions in there. With all due respect to the member, I will answer them both.

With respect to the Whitehorse Public Library, I would like to re-emphasize that this is a totally open and accountable government and, obviously, a very, very approachable government, in that we have heard from the community of Whitehorse with respect to the impact and the decision to reduce the hours of the library. In that order, Mr. Speaker, I will find a way to make sure that the public library remains open on Sundays.

Ms. Netro:      For the last three days, the minister has said that I do not have my facts right. I take offence to that. But let's move on.

Yesterday in the House, he said that the budget had increased by $200,000. The day before, he said on the radio that, in fact, the libraries budget was cut. I have pages here from the budget regarding libraries and archives. The public libraries budget has been cut. Will the minister set the record straight and admit that the budget has been cut and that I was not factually incorrect?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the library, I do believe that I have answered the member's question on that.

Ms. Netro:      I don't take that as an answer, Mr. Speaker.

On Tuesday, the minister said that, in 1996, the NDP promised a new Grey Mountain School. I would urge the minister to actually read the platform, as I have. He will see that we did not commit to building a new Grey Mountain Primary. Last night, I attended the public meeting at Whitehorse Elementary, as did the Member for Whitehorse Centre.

The minister did not. It became clear that at least one school council is not happy with the information provided for the public consultation. There is a clear perception that the government already had -

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

Ms. Netro:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What is the minister now doing to ensure that the consultation following this demographic review is meaningful and that it is non-partisan and not, as was suggested by one person at last night's meeting, a sham?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, well, I'm glad the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin got all her facts right this time. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that I did have a commitment last night, and I have been in touch with the school council president and also talked to a school council member just this morning with respect to me not attending last night's meeting. The capacity and enrolment study is not finished, and it is an operational aspect of the department at this time. For me to attend any of them, if I couldn't attend all of them, would have been seen as a bias in any one of those meetings, so therefore I didn't attend others, either.

It is very likely - and we have said this before - that we will not require the number of schools that we currently have in Whitehorse. That is an option. People need to be aware of that. We won't know for certain until the study is done.

Mr. Speaker, we are not building a new school; we are replacing an existing school. There are four schools in the Whitehorse area that are 25 years old. I cannot imagine that all four need to be shut down. Something is going to have to be replaced, though. We made a commitment to replace Grey Mountain Primary School. The Grey Mountain Primary School is a collection of portable trailers that are over 35 years old and have outlasted their lifespan. These portables have a history of rotting carpets, musty smells, poor ventilation and heating, inadequate classroom space, and the list goes on and on and on.

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

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Speaker. The promise to replace the Grey Mountain School was made for good reason. The difference, Mr. Speaker, is that, unlike the anti-business, anti-Whitehorse members opposite, we are going to keep our promise.

Question re:  Carcross multi-use facility, government funding assistance

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

Yesterday I asked the Premier, in her capacity as the Finance minister, to come to visit the community of Teslin and to talk to them about getting a much-needed project going, and that's the sewer extension, in which, of course, the village has a capital share and also has the plans ready and able to go. We all know that the Premier refused to answer the question. So today I'd like to ask a question about the town of Carcross.

If the Winter Games are coming in the year 2007, the people of Carcross want to participate. Right now, the people of Carcross have a 30-year-old curling rink and community club that was built by volunteer labour and salvaged material. They want to build a multi-use facility, which would include a curling club and a community hall. They want involvement, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier, in her capacity as the Finance minister, visit Carcross and sit down with the folks of Carcross and talk about how to get this project rolling, and I'd like that to happen sooner than later, if I could. A simple yes-or-no answer would suffice.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The reason the Premier did not answer the member's question yesterday is because the question was the responsibility of the Department of Community and Transportation Services, as is today's question. When a community wishes to improve their facilities, there is a process to be followed, and I would suggest that tabling a petition in the House is not the best way to get the government's attention. They merely need to come and talk to us, which they have not yet done and which we would welcome.

The community has not yet made any overtures to my office, and I would be very pleased to receive them.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I find it to be absolutely pathetic to take an obvious swing at the town of Carcross. The town of Carcross has followed the process, which is established and laid out in the Order Paper. There are provisions in the Order Paper for petitions, and they have let the minister know, and I am terribly sorry if the minister's nose is out of joint about this issue.

The people of Carcross want to be participants in the upcoming games, Mr. Speaker, and there's a little bit of a matter of time and questions here.

I would like to ask the Premier to go to the community, as part of the budget consultation that's coming up here now, and find a way that would enable the town of Carcross to participate. I think a good thing would be to get $50,000 out in seed money, let's develop a conceptual plan, and let's see how we can factor it in. Let's have a can-do attitude instead of this bullying attitude that we have.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I take offence at the member opposite suggesting that there is a bullying attitude. That is clearly not true. I would suggest that the people of Carcross are getting bad advice from their MLA who, as the former Minister of Community and Transportation Services, knows very well the process that should be followed.

I would suggest that he follow it.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I am following the process on behalf of the people I represent. I can tell you that this evening they are going to be watching this, and they are going to be as appalled as I am that the Premier would not stand up on behalf of the people of Carcross and fulfil her role as the Finance minister or even in her leadership role as Premier here. It seems very strange that, over the years, the department can get its wish list for the towns of Carcross and Tagish, but the people's wish list doesn't even make it on the horizon. There is not even a blip on the radar screen.

Will the Premier please come out and visit Carcross? Will she agree to fund a conceptual plan as a first step of including the multi-use centre in a future capital budget?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting. The people of Carcross obviously didn't just come up with this idea overnight. It has probably been there for some time.

The member opposite was the Minister of Community and Transportation Services in the previous government. Did he do anything for those people in this area? No, he did not. I wonder why. He was the minister responsible. It is not the Premier's responsibility, as the Minister of Finance; it is the Department of Community and Transportation Services' responsibility to talk with communities about municipal infrastructure.

I would be pleased to meet with the people of Carcross.

Question re:   Mining exploration forecast

Mr. Jenkins:      I have a question today for the Premier. Now, the Yukon Chamber of Mines is predicting the worst ever mining exploration season for the Yukon, at an all-time low of some $5.5 million this year. The chamber is laying the blame for this dismal forecast clearly on the anti-mining policies of the Liberal governments both here in the Yukon and in Ottawa. The acting president of the Chamber of Mines emphasized that mineral prices are not the key factor for this disastrous showing. It is because of government policy such as the Yukon protected areas strategy, including mining claims within park boundaries under land claims, which hasn't helped either.

Does the Premier agree with what the Yukon Chamber of Mines is saying or does she believe that she knows more about mining in the territory than the mining industry itself?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I have absolute respect for the preliminary estimates gathered by the Yukon Chamber of Mines for the exploration season coming up. I am disappointed, as are all Yukoners, that they are as low as they are. And to suggest that we are not disappointed or not recognizing that factor would not be as open and accountable as we are. Certainly I share the concern.

I also, in all fairness, would like to remind the member opposite that we have taken steps in assisting the mining industry. He will recall the federal Finance minister's comments around our lobbying efforts - successful, as it turned out - with regard to the federal flow-through shares. And those have not stopped. In response to one of the questions, we have continued our efforts to see if they can't be extended.

Here in the Yukon, personally, and as a government, we have increased the mineral exploration tax credit - extended it for another year and increased it. We also increased the funding and extended the Yukon mining incentives program.

So we have not sat idly by and done nothing. We have taken steps. We are concerned, yes, at these preliminary estimates. I am hopeful that what will happen is what has happened in previous years, that in fact they will go up as the season increases, as they have done in previous years.

Mr. Jenkins:     The minister just doesn't get it, Mr. Speaker. They have $100 million in the bank, and they are in control of the Yukon protected areas strategy. They have to do something with that money and the strategy.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has made much of North American Tungsten's plan to reopen the mine at Cantung. Will the Premier confirm that North American Tungsten has a hiring agent in Lower Post to hire workers out of British Columbia rather than perhaps the Yukon? Here we have a mine located in the Northwest Territories that is hiring out of British Columbia while Yukon taxpayers are footing the annual bill of approximately $1 million for the road maintenance to the mine site. Can the Premier explain what is wrong with this picture?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, what's wrong with the picture is the fact that the member opposite has not recognized the fact that the Yukon government is working with North American Tungsten. And, as a matter of fact, having secured their financing, it's my understanding that officials anticipate reaching a conclusion with North American Tungsten on Yukon benefits or Yukon initiatives in the very near future, perhaps as early as next week.

I will also confirm for the member opposite his own comments as of yesterday. Let's assume there's going to be a Minto Copper and a couple of other mines coming back on line. We're not assuming that, Mr. Speaker. We're working very hard with Minto, with North American Tungsten and with the placer mining community. My own lobbying with Minister Dahliwal with respect to assistance to the placer mining industry has been appreciated by them. We're also working with Expatriate and other companies interested in the Yukon.

We're not only working with the mining companies; we're working with other Yukoners who have been miners for a great length of time and are now exploring other opportunities in oil and gas, as well. So we are not standing idly by. We are working hard as a government. We are working with industry, and we are starting to see, in some other areas, some progress.

I am disappointed that we are not seeing the progress yet in the mining industry; I am not going to stop my efforts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, I will provide the minister with a little bit of advice. Perhaps some steps in the right direction would be beneficial for the mining industry, rather than everything being counterproductive. The major factor negatively impacting on mining in the territory is uncertainty surrounding the protected areas strategy and special management areas established under the land claims.

Will the Premier help to allay this concern here today by establishing an upper limit on the amount of land that will be withdrawn under the Yukon protected areas strategy? Will she at least do that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, first of all, this government is working to resolve outstanding land claims, and the member might well think back to a few short weeks ago, when he stood on his feet and commended this government for the initials on the Ta'an Kwach'an agreement. There are six others that have to be resolved. We are working very hard, every single day, on that. And we support the settlement of land claims. The member opposite does not. In his lack of support for special management areas, the member opposite does not.

The member opposite stands and says that we do not work and have not worked in support of the mining industry. Let me quote from the recent report by the Fraser Institute: "In the Yukon, the Premier recognizes the need to encourage investment in mining and is aggressively promoting this issue." That is by the president of a junior mining company.

Our efforts have been recognized by the mining industry. They have spoken in support of our efforts in lobbying at the federal level for the flow-through shares. And they have expressed their support for the Yukon mineral exploration tax credit, which we increased and extended, and the Yukon mining incentives program. We recognize that and we are doing it.

In terms of creating certainty, there are two key things that have to happen: we have to settle outstanding land claims and we have to deal with YPAS. We are dealing with both, with the cooperation and assistance of Yukoners.

Question re:   Motion re sitting hours of the Legislature

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of cooperation and in a gesture of goodwill and good faith to the members opposite, we in the official opposition have only one more question today in Question Period, and my question is for the Premier.

Will the Premier direct her House leader to move the special motion pursuant to the agreement of House leaders this morning and pass that motion here and now, and resolve this House into Committee so that we can expedite the public's business and get on with the debate of the budget? Will the Premier do that? Yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, what I just heard the member ask me to do is shorten Question Period, which is quite contrary to our motion today. We have 10 minutes left in Question Period. The time for government motions is after Question Period, and I'm quite confident that our House leader will move government motions at that point in time.

However, if the member would like to question as to why we have been working so hard and why our budget that has been presented is so reasonable, I'd be more than happy to answer that question.

Speaker:      Are there any further questions?

Question re:   Alaska Highway pipeline, feasibility

Mr. Kent:      I have a question today for the Minister of Economic Development.

On October 6, the Member for Watson Lake put out a press release saying that the Alaska Highway pipeline was a far-off pipe dream. Members of both the NDP and Yukon Party have also suggested the project would do nothing to help the Yukon economy.

Could the Premier please tell me whether the pipeline is a far-off pipe dream, as the Member for Watson Lake suggested, and whether the project will create any jobs for Yukoners?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I'd like to thank the Member for Riverside for the question with respect to the pipeline and to our aggressive promotion of the pipeline, and express at the opening my appreciation for the Member for Riverside who has also assisted me in this regard.

With respect to the pipeline and jobs specifically this summer, I would like to advise the member opposite that the AMEC, that's AMEC environmental company, have contracted to do some work and that there are - the exact quote is that the environmental company contracted to do the work will be doing a thorough going over of the route this summer, things like hydrology and hydro-geology. And the company spokesperson estimates that 80 Yukoners could be put to work on the project over the summer, and that's with one of the subcontractors. There are several others who are working, and I understand that there are many of the environmental consulting companies and several others who have been, with the assistance of the oil and gas unit, in touch with the subcontractors and are seeking a number of Yukoners to put to work in terms of survey contracts as well.

Some of the other work that is going on this summer and immediately with respect to the pipeline promotion is work on the road map with regard to the environmental permitting process and some of the other permitting that is required. And the member will also be aware that as recently as Sunday, I also spoke with Governor Knowles on our work in this particular area.

Speaker:      Are there any further questions?

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Speaker, the House leaders have reached an agreement respecting the conduct of business of the House for the remainder of the spring sitting. The details of that agreement are contained in the following motion: I move

THAT, to fulfill the agreement reached between House Leaders on behalf of their caucuses, this House orders:

(1) the times for the sittings of the Assembly for the remainder of the 2001 spring sitting shall be as follows:

(a) Thursday, May 3, 2001 - 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.,

(b) Monday, May 7, 2001 - 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.,

(c) Tuesday, May 8, 2001 - 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and

(d) Wednesday, May 9, 2001 - 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.;

(2) the business to be considered under Orders of the Day on those sittings shall be restricted to Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 2001-02;

(3) if Bill No. 4 should still be under consideration in the Committee of the Whole at 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9, 2001, the Chair shall interrupt the proceedings and immediately put all questions necessary to conclude consideration of Bill No. 4 and then report to the Assembly;

(4) a motion for Third Reading of Bill No. 4 shall be moved immediately after Bill No. 4 has been reported from the Committee of the Whole;

(5) each of the Leaders in the House shall be given a maximum of 20 minutes to speak to the motion for Third Reading of Bill No. 4;

(6) if debate is continuing on the motion for Third Reading of Bill No. 4 at 5:45 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9, 2001, the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and put the question on the motion;

(7) the House shall then receive the Commissioner to grant Assent to the bills which have passed the House; and

(8) the House shall then adjourn.

Speaker:      Does the government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House?

All Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      Unanimous consent has been granted.

It has been moved by the government House leader

THAT, to fulfill the agreement reached between House Leaders on behalf of their caucuses, this House orders:

(1) the times for the sittings of the Assembly for the remainder of the 2001 spring sitting shall be as follows:

(a) Thursday, May 3, 2001 - 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.,

(b) Monday, May 7, 2001 - 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.,

(c) Tuesday, May 8, 2001 - 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and

(d) Wednesday, May 9, 2001 - 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.;

(2) the business to be considered under Orders of the Day on those sittings shall be restricted to Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 2001-02;

(3) if Bill No. 4 should still be under consideration in the Committee of the Whole at 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9, 2001, the Chair shall interrupt the proceedings and immediately put all questions necessary to conclude consideration of Bill No. 4 and then report to the Assembly;

(4) a motion for Third Reading of Bill No. 4 shall be moved immediately after Bill No. 4 has been reported from the Committee of the Whole;

(5) each of the Leaders in the House shall be given a maximum of 20 minutes to speak to the motion for Third Reading of Bill No. 4;

(6) if debate is continuing on the motion for Third Reading of Bill No. 4 at 5:45 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9, 2001, the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and put the question on the motion;

(7) the House shall then receive the Commissioner to grant Assent to the bills which have passed the House; and

(8) the House shall then adjourn.

If there is no debate, are you prepared for the question? Are you agreed?

Motion agreed to

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

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

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:  Good afternoon, everybody. I now call Committee of the Whole to order. In the spirit of expediting business, today's recess will be 10 minutes.

Recess

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

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

Chair:  We will continue with debate on Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 2001-02. We are in general debate of Department of Renewable Resources.

Department of Renewable Resources - continued

Chair:  Mr. Eftoda had the floor last. Mr. Eftoda, you may begin.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, this budget is a commitment to the wise management of our natural environment to the sustainable use of our resources to increasing, improving and promoting economic opportunities and to public participation in wildlife management decisions.

With the funds provided through this budget, the department will continue to provide critical support to key government initiatives such as land claims, devolution and the formulation of the development assessment process. The total proposed expenditure of the Department of Renewable Resources reflects an increase of $742,000 or 4.3 percent from our 2000-02 forecast.

Mr. Chair, I will now go into the budget in more detail.

In O&M, the increase from our 2000-01 forecast is $777,000 or five percent. This is largely due to the $372,000 for collective agreement and employment benefit increases and $405,000 for some new and changing initiatives.

Included in this $405,000 are the following: $80,000 is for an extended campground season. Our support for the promotion of the Yukon tourism industry and the desire to accommodate the RV and other rubber-tire traffic is reflected in our new initiative to expand the shoulder-season usage of our campgrounds. To this end, the department will be extending the campground season by opening the higher utilized campgrounds in early May - presently about May 20 or earlier - until the end of September. This will complement Tourism Yukon's effort to market the Yukon as a destination outside of the peak summer season and increase visitations during this period.

The extended season will go a long way toward reducing gravel pit and rest-stop camping, and will help prevent littering and other harmful environmental impacts. The villages of Mayo and Haines Junction, the Klondike Visitors Association, the Tourism Industry Association and Yukon Tourism have all made formal requests for this extended season. There have also been numerous requests from local individuals.

$50,000 is for the operational costs of the new Tombstone Territorial Park. We know our parks, protected areas and natural wonders can be invaluable destinations for travellers seeking new and interesting experiences. To this end, we are moving forward with a new initiative to manage the Tombstone Territorial Park as an important destination that we believe will have noticeable ramifications for the tourism industry in Dawson City. A management plan is being prepared; however, it is already known that, at minimum, there will need to be on-the-ground presence this summer, including a park ranger for six months. The O&M funding for the operation of this park will need to be revisited following completion of the management plan next year.

There is $40,000 for the operational costs of the Fishing Branch Ecological Reserve. This new budget also affirms our commitment to the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation final land claim agreement with the people of Old Crow, as we begin the work of managing the Fishing Branch Ecological Reserve and implementing the management plan worked out between our two governments.

This budget will provide the initial O&M funding required for a seasonal - or about a four-month - park ranger position, including support costs as per the management plan approved this past April. The plan for the larger area encompassing the wilderness preserve and habitat protection area will be completed over the next year, at which time the O&M funding for the management of this protected area will need to be revisited.

There is $86,000 for the Aishihik wolf fertility control project. Much has been written about predator control, Mr. Chair, but what we may have forgotten is that the Yukon has been a leader in developing non-lethal predator control procedures that will have benefits for other parts of the world. We are continuing to support the research in this area, particularly since the plan for the Aishihik area was developed through wide public participation and support in the community.

This budget will allow testing of immunocontraceptive techniques on wolf reproduction in order to maintain the population at 100 animals, as per the integrated wildlife management plan recently approved by YTG, the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation and the Alsek Renewable Resource Council.

The potential savings in management costs will be significant, Mr. Chair, and will result in the delivery of a low-cost solution in future predator-prey management situations, as well as much higher levels of public acceptance than lethal control or invasive surgical techniques.

$60,000 is for the joint habitat mapping project with Ducks Unlimited Canada. Our interest in the health and vitality of our wetlands is very important to the rest of the world, especially when you consider their impact on migratory birds from other parts of the western hemisphere and the need to be concerned about species at risk. That's why we are continuing our commitment to a joint initiative with Ducks Unlimited to map the Southern Lakes wetlands.

An agreement to work cooperatively on the Yukon land cover and wild bird inventory in the Southern Lakes area was signed this past May. While this is a one-year agreement, payment of the Yukon share is spread over a two-fiscal-year period.

The first year of the agreement largely covered fieldwork, and our share was our participation in the fieldwork. There is $15,000 going to the Yukon Fish and Game Association. This will help the association take a more direct role in advising this government on important issues and participating in wildlife management planning in the communities. There is $10,000 identified to assist the Yukon Trappers Association to comply with humane trapping requirements established by the Association of International Humane Trapping Standards.

There is $10,000 for the annual meeting of the ministers and deputy ministers of Agriculture. There is no question in my mind that - pardon the pun - agriculture is a growing industry here in Yukon. We will be welcoming the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of Agriculture this June to their first-ever meeting in the Yukon. This is an excellent opportunity to showcase our industry as well as draw attention to our industry needs and our current stage of development. We expect that this will inject upward of $1 million into the Yukon economy.

The $54,000 balance is being used to fund additional fleet vehicle costs. The balance is also expected to cover fuel and electrical increases, and additional demands on some of our support units, like the GIS unit and the finance and administration branch.

In addition to the new initiatives, we will be continuing to support recycling efforts through contributions to registered recycling depots for the recycling of non-beverage container materials, the collection and disposal of waste oil, and the collection of used tires from Yukon landfills.

$100,000 was allocated in last year's budget for waste reduction and recycling initiatives. Approximately 7,600 tires, 68,800 litres of waste oil and 45 pounds of ozone-depleting substances from 382 refrigeration units were collected. Also included were $40,000 of improvements to registered recycling depots to allow for recycling materials other than beverage containers.

In the 2001-02 fiscal year, we will continue with contributions to registered recycling depots for the recycling of non-beverage container materials, collection and disposal of waste oil and finalization of the collection of used tires from Yukon landfills.

I would like now, Mr. Chair, to make a few comments on the capital budget. In capital, the decrease from the 2000-01 forecast is $35,000, or 1.8 percent. This decrease is due largely to the fact that the 2000-01 forecast reflects the supplementary of $135,000, which was largely revotes and collective agreement increases. There are some new and changing initiatives on the capital side. $100,000 has been identified for legislation development. There is no question that the public has a strong interest in the management of the Yukon's wildlife resources and this means we have to come up with new ways to adapt to changing conditions. We have allocated additional monies for the coming year to meet our commitment to produce a modern wildlife act to replace the existing 19-year-old document.

This will allow us to complete the first phase of the review of the Wildlife Act and start work on the second phase. The first phase involves administration and enforcement issues and will deal with charter concerns, authorities, penalties, licensing issues and other matters that will help clarify and simplify the law. This will reduce red tape and streamline administration.

Phase 2 will deal largely with species-at-risk issues and phase 3 will deal with land claims issues. This will also allow us to continue the development of potential park-related amendments. Regardless of possible YPAS-related amendments being reviewed by the YPAS Public Advisory Committee, a need has been identified for certain operational and administrative amendments to the Parks Act and regulations to ensure the effective management of our parks and campgrounds.

$200,000 has been identified to continue work in the planning and development of a new interpretative centre in the Tombstone Territorial Park. We have allocated funds to begin the work of managing Tombstone Territorial Park and to build a lasting visitor information centre where people start their wilderness adventure into the new park. Specifically, we will be doing some revisions and updating to the building design as they are now about eight years old. We will commence design and fabrication work for exhibits and displays, and we will do some design work for the landscaping and outdoor interpretation.

$11,000 has been identified for an agricultural infrastructure feasibility study. We are also earmarking new funds in the department to look at ways of improving local services to the agricultural industry. This will allow us to employ the services of a consultant to assess the feasibility, cost and location of establishing various types of infrastructure for the agricultural industry.

We want to look at a number of options, such as a velvet antler processing facility, a community kitchen and processing equipment, a vegetable storage facility and a farmer's market site.

Mr. Chair, these capital initiatives have been offset to a certain degree by reductions in the amounts budgeted for YPAS of $120,000; land use planning for $20,000; facility additions and improvements of $30,000; heritage rivers, $24,000, and the deer population assessment of $30,000. That covers the major new and changing initiatives in my department.

We are looking forward to another very productive year.

Mr. Chair, I would be happy to answer any questions members may have in general debate on this budget. I would also like to take the opportunity at this time to express an appreciation to the Member for Kluane in his appreciation of the budgeting briefing exercise that went on.

Mr. McRobb:      Yes, we in the official opposition certainly do have questions for the minister. I would like to thank him for reading his prepared speech and also thank the people in the department who wrote it. Unfortunately, the minister chose not to provide it to us in advance as requested. It would have been extremely helpful to have that information in advance, because the notes and questions I have prepared touch on some of that information and I am afraid it will result in some duplication in the conveyance of that information back and forth.

So, I would hope that the minister will be understanding if some of my questions were answered in his opening speech, because I did not have that information in advance, and I'm simply not able to review my notes and update them on the fly within a few minutes.

So, Mr. Chair, in the spirit of cooperation in the future, perhaps the minister would see fit to providing us in the opposition with his prepared speech in advance.

While I'm at it, I'd also like to ensure that the Tourism minister hears this because we know the Tourism department is coming up. In fact, before the Liberals started juggling these departments around, Mr. Chair, it was up first. But then they put Renewable Resources in first and juggled them around a few times. I was fully prepared to debate the Department of Tourism, but they put Renewable Resources up. I think the Tourism minister maybe felt a little too much heat from the arts community last week to proceed with her department and required a reprieve. I can understand that, because there is certainly a lot of anxiety around how these Liberal ministers are handling their departments.

So I just wanted to put those concerns upfront on the record.

I would like to turn now to acknowledge the hard-working staff within the Department of Renewable Resources. We know this is a large department that has a variety of programs that touch the lives of Yukoners in many ways. I'd also like to thank all the many volunteers and members of the important boards, committees and councils that feed into the department's work.

Mr. Chair, the Department of Renewable Resources is responsible for protecting our environment and Yukon wildlife and responding to a number of challenges, including major issues, such as climate change, global warming, oil and gas development, land use planning and park development. There are also countless other matters that the department has to deal with, including the upcoming devolution of the four major resource sectors to the Yukon government - those being minerals, forests, lands and water.

It has to deal with the reclamation of abandoned and depleted mining claims; the cleanup of contaminated sites; the management of our fish and wildlife; enforcement of regulations, including the Environment Act, the Wildlife Act and so on; wildlife inventory and predator control programs; the development and maintenance of our campground facilities and wildlife viewing stations; managing issues such as increased backcountry travel; the promotion of the sustainable use of the Yukon Territory's renewable resources; the promotion of our agricultural industry; undertaking resource management activities respecting land claim and self-government agreements.

Mr. Chair, it has to fulfill all of those and many more duties and functions while integrating with other sectors, including other Yukon government departments and other governments in ensuring that their mandate is met. So certainly this department has its hands full, and we on this side are supporters of this department and certainly would encourage the minister to provide whatever direction is necessary to allow this department to meet its objectives and fulfill its mandate and function without any delays or stoppages along the way.

Now, Mr. Chair, I know that there are many issues that are out there concerning this department. The Yukon protected areas strategy is one of them, and I'm certain that the leader of the third party has several questions, as do I, around the Yukon protected areas strategy.

I have other questions relating to agriculture, wildlife, predator control, the gas pipeline, land claims, land use planning, Tombstone, contaminated sites, reclamation, forestry, recycling, renewable resource councils - Mr. Chair, there are a few other areas - so I think you can get a grasp of some of the many issues this department has to deal with.

Of course, these issues are not without controversy, Mr. Chair. And, being a member of this Assembly, I'm sure that you are aware of some of the more controversial issues. It has been said that the protected areas strategy has become somewhat of a lightning rod for discontent, from the development community in the Yukon toward a governmental environmental agenda. And I think a lot of that goes back to the way this Liberal government is handling the issue.

About a month ago, we debated a Yukon Party motion in this Assembly on the Yukon protected areas strategy, and I made my suggestions known at that time. I believe the minister could be handling the whole area of protected areas in a much better way. I put on record that day a number of suggestions, such as that this government could undertake a public information campaign to put some facts on the record in the public domain to help clear up some of the confusion and anxiety over this strategy.

There's a lot of misinformation out there and frequently some of it enters this Chamber. I don't believe the minister is doing an adequate job in countering those forces and he certainly could be doing a lot more. On that motion day, I recall challenging the minister into at least meeting the advertising campaign put forward by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. What I am talking about is, I recall seeing more ads in support of YPAS in our local newspapers from CPAWS than I do from the whole Department of Renewable Resources.

When one group on one end of the spectrum is promoting something, that automatically causes an effect on the other side. Sure enough, it should have come as no surprise that the interests on the other side were soon publishing their own ads in the paper. And what we have is a media war of each side trying to further its own positions before the public.

Now this could have been easily prevented had the Yukon government fulfilled its leadership role and put out there some information it believes is accurate regarding this whole process. Where were they, Mr. Chair? Were they upfront, visible, vocal? No. They ran and hid, and that's shameful because it has the result of pitting Yukoners against each other - something this government promised it would not do. Another broken promise.

Mr. Chair, it's high time that this minister and his colleagues accept the responsibility given to them and do something as a government to take a lead on some of these issues and not just sit back, laugh at the ads put in the paper and watch the fight. That's not right.

It is incumbent on this government to take a leadership role and put out information to calm down the whole debate. I'm aware that there is plenty of information that could serve that purpose. I have information that we were privy to, as the previous government, that would dispel many of the myths put out there. Where is the minister and where is that information? Where is the information regarding the land cap and the fact that every other jurisdiction in the country has a protected areas strategy? Virtually no other has a land cap. Where is that type of information coming from the head of this department? It is nowhere to be seen.

There are plenty of other issues under this major initiative, and the minister could fill the void and provide some leadership, but he's ducking out. Just like at the meeting last night, Mr. Chair, he's nowhere to be seen - vacant.

Back in June, this minister promised me and committed to this House to undertake his responsibilities seriously. I won't forget that, Mr. Chair. It's all right here in Hansard, June 29, 2000.

The minister himself said, "I have committed myself to becoming totally familiar with the Renewable Resources department, so I don't really foresee in the near future any vacation time or time off. I have committed myself to work here to get the job done." Well, Mr. Chair, where is he? People at these meetings need to know what direction he is giving his department. People at these meetings want to see him and want to provide him with their input. They want to ask him questions and want him to answer before them. That's the system of accountability our democracy operates in. It's also called respect for Yukon people and organizations, who take the time - their own time - to learn about these issues and get involved on behalf of the public, and they deserve to be treated respectfully.

So I just want to impress upon the minister that he did give that commitment. I know that he takes his responsibilities seriously a lot of the time and he no doubt puts a lot of hours in. I'm not trying to take that away from the minister, and I believe he is sincere. For the most part, I think this minister is very capable of doing a good job, but why are things being performed so poorly? What's the reason for it? Why are Yukoners fighting with each other over matters that this minister can step in and provide the leadership and guidance on to see them through to the end of the process?

We on this side recognize the virtues of the protected areas process. We know that it won't be the end of exploration and development in the territory and, in fact, will bring certainty. It will bring protection of areas important to the territory and to wildlife. Also, it will help encourage responsible development in the other areas.

That's what resource interests are clamouring for. That's what the environmental community is clamouring for, Mr. Chair, but where's the product? Never mind the process; where's the product? It's all caught up in a big review. I recall reading in the newspapers last June about this minister claiming that, come the fall, the process would be decided and they will be working on legislation and they'll have so-called "fixed" - that's the word the minister and his colleagues used - "fixed" the protected areas strategy. They promised to bring everybody to the table. They made all kinds of promises like, "The Liberals will find a balance between protecting environment and promoting the development of our natural resources."

They made other promises, like these types of interests are not conflicting. These Liberals came across as the great mediators. People voted for them because they thought the Liberals would be the panacea to these types of arguments and discussions and debates in the public arena. They thought that, by voting for the middle-of-the-road party, the great conciliators, finally we would be able to move forward in these directions and put the squabbling behind us, Mr. Chair.

What a disappointment. One year later, Mr. Chair, it has never been worse. It has never been worse. The minister stands up and points a finger over here and he has all kinds of bad things to say about how the previous government bungled the consultation process. He blames it all on us. He doesn't take the responsibility himself.

That's another example of what I'm talking about. The minister's own actions substantiate my point.

I see the Tourism minister shaking her head, but let me say, Mr. Chair, that she herself has done what her colleague accuses the previous government of doing. Mr. Chair, by not consulting with the arts community over the restructuring of that department and subordinating the arts branch under the heritage branch, what she did was skip an important step in the public consultation process. Mr. Chair, that process went from backroom discussions with Liberal insiders to the Cabinet table. Where was the public process? Mr. Chair, there was none. Does that sound familiar? Yes, it does, because it's the same thing her colleague, the Minister of Renewable Resources, said the previous NDP government did with respect to the Fishing Branch process. Well, they like to point the finger, but they don't like to stand up and assume the responsibility that Yukoners expected of them a year ago.

I'm just doing my job to try to hold them accountable. Holding them completely accountable is impossible. Participating in this legislative forum is only a part of our jobs here. We are limited in number. We count on a lot of people for their help and input, Mr. Chair, to help us hold this government accountable. There are a lot of things that escape us, things that we don't know about, but hopefully they are few in number. The ones we do know about, in following up on them - quite often we don't get adequate answers. The ministers are becoming quite proficient in not answering questions during Question Period, or any other time for that matter. On the other hand, they're getting very proficient at circumventing this democratic process and dealing instead with the media. Quite often we have to resort to the media to get the information we need.

Now, the minister is chuckling. I can give an example from last July. I asked him on that day in this forum what consultative reviews his department will be embarking upon. He got up and cited a few reviews. Then the Whitehorse Star arrived. I managed to get it while we were still dealing with the department, and lo and behold, there was an article in there entitled something to the effect of "Yukon government will review Wildlife Act." Well, I checked the information provided by the minister only hours before - guess what? The Wildlife Act wasn't even mentioned in the public reviews. That's one of the first examples that we on this side discovered about how this government doesn't deal through this chamber of accountability; instead it chooses other ways to try to manipulate public understanding. They are not forthright, they are not open, and they are not accountable.

We are getting used to being treated like that. Hardly a week goes by - fortunately I don't have to say "day" - when there's not another example to prove that point.

The government tables briefing notes to the media, not to us. It tables letters to the media, not to us. It's becoming disgusting. I would call upon this minister and his colleagues to take it up a notch and to assure them that they have nothing to hide unless they are in fact hiding something. Give us the information we need to do our jobs and we'll do them and get out of here.

We know they don't like being in here. They hate being in here. We saw that from their motion yesterday. They tried to bring closure in through the back door and run this Legislature around the clock for however many days required to conclude it and bring in assent, Mr. Chair.

That was ramrodding the democratic process and depleting our thin resources, trying to force conclusion. Mr. Chair, I could stand here for hours and talk about situations like this, and you know I can. But I'm limited at this time to 30 minutes in debate. I think my time has nearly expired.

Mr. Chair, I think that the minister is intelligent enough to understand the concerns that I have put on the table. And I hope he's fair enough to also appreciate it and put it ahead of the temptation to play political games, because, in his more personal moments, I know that this minister would be willing to concede that, aside from the politics, we are here to work together for the benefit of the citizens of this territory.

Together, we would like to make progress through the business of this House. We would like to complete the review of this budget and all other matters, end this sitting like any other sitting, and get on with the rest of our jobs. We all have constituents out there who need to talk to us about various things. We all have other matters we need to follow up on. It's very difficult to do those things while sitting in here, because of the other demands on our limited time and resources.

So, we need time away from this Chamber, Mr. Chair, to fulfill our other responsibilities. I know the minister would acknowledge that, so I would urge him to start doing simple things, like providing us with information ahead of time, as requested.

Now, I will acknowledge one thing, Mr. Chair. The other day I sent him a note requesting an organizational flow chart explaining the YPAS strategic initiative and implementation plan about how it will be structured and how the direction and input would be directed. I was provided with that information yesterday, and I do acknowledge and appreciate that. I also note that that particular flow chart was dated April 3, so it was existing information and not something that had to be produced to meet my request.

Mr. Chair, it is extremely helpful in trying to understand the various functions in restructuring of the department, in terms of accommodating YPAS. It has the various sectors blocked out and integrated together. I presume that we will be exploring that later on, when we zero in on YPAS, in particular.

But I would like to ask the minister a direct and very simple question. Hopefully, I will get an informative answer that is very clear. I would like to ask him this: how many parks will he create in this mandate?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, a point of clarification - is that in reference to the YPAS or everything?

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, Mr. Chair, I will answer and I will commit to the member opposite, because I know that there are a goodly number of things that we already agree on. I am committed to answer any question that he puts forward as best I can, and I will make all attempts to do that in a respectful and complete manner.

I first of all want to thank him for the positive comments that he made toward department officials and the people who work within Renewable Resources because, Mr. Chair, they are an incredible group of people. And all the things that the Member for Kluane had listed that the department is responsible for are true. They do have limited resources, they do have to work under a tight budget, and they do have to look after the whole territory.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, since last June, when I espoused to the member opposite that I was going to work full tilt on managing my respective departments, I have done that. Even the slight break that I did have was interrupted with other matters related to the Department of Education. So I am committed to doing the best that we can, and I know the member knows that. We have had a couple of conversations - frequent and short but constructive. I even gleaned a couple of kudos in his opening remarks, Mr. Chair, and again I appreciate that.

I have always expressed a willingness, because I know that when the Member for Kluane sinks his teeth into an issue - and this is meant as a compliment - he doesn't let go. I know that we have had exchanges in the YPAS debate. We flung not always complimentary comments to each other. I would like to remind the member that maybe I could have done things more effectively, better, differently, and the member, being in a previous government, knows that sometimes issues and tasks fling by at an incredibly fast pace. I also appreciate the acknowledgement by the member opposite that the previous government didn't always do things right with respect to YPAS, and maybe it's time that we do sit down and share some information.

When the member does get up, I might even take a liberty here and ask the member opposite - because I know how he does feel about YPAS. I would like maybe just a quick response on why I haven't heard him publicly support the YPAS concept even if he doesn't agree with how I am directing the department in that area. We have acknowledged in this House that the original document, as prepared through consultation, public input, has certainly been lauded as one of the best in the country.

And he mentioned the cap factor. He also acknowledged that he has information on that aspect, and he knows that the Member for Klondike has continually hammered on members on this side of the House, as I have been queried by my caucus colleagues on why a cap isn't established. And I would like to exchange an idea outside this House with the Member for Kluane and get some information from him. I know that I have been down in the offices talking to other members on different issues. I have talked to the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin when we were going to pay a visit to Old Crow on the Education Act review. She helped in setting things up because sometimes you have to take consideration of the audience that you are going to be presenting to. I have talked to the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes on a number of issues relative to his constituency, and we have found resolution on those issues, although there has never been an acknowledgement in here on that.

So there have been times when we have cooperated, and unfortunately those good times don't get mentioned in the House.

In a recent, I believe, Yukon News commentary or editorial, the author had said that the conduct in this House is shameful. And I guess we are all responsible for that. We all do it, probably some more than others. And it is hard sometimes to sit here and listen to personal comments coming across the House off microphone. But as I said when I was standing up to answer the member opposite, I will make best efforts to provide him the best answers that I can.

The comment the Member for Kluane made about the chart - things are not static. Things change. I did provide, early the next morning, the chart that he had asked for. I have always tried to respond as quickly as possible to any questions or requests that are made from any member of the opposition.

So, getting back to an answer to the question asked of how many parks I and the department are going to create in this mandate, in all honesty, I can't provide a definitive answer on that. I can't provide a set number on that.

The member knows that we are going through a review process with respect to YPAS and the remaining 16 areas of interest, and how we're going to provide certainty to the industry. I appreciate the comment from the member when he acknowledged that the YPAS is not going to impede the extraction resource sector.

I hope that answer will suffice for now. I will keep the member up to date. I would invite him to participate in the YPAS process in getting it up and running and to calm the anxieties that are out there. I will publicly ask for his support, because I know he's already acknowledged that it's an important feature. The original document was created by the previous government and it's a good one. So, I would ask the member opposite for public support on the YPAS exercise.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, I have no problem giving that, again. It's not something I have ever been reluctant to provide. As recently as a month ago, during the Yukon Party motion, I made it quite clear, and also in general debate on this budget less than two months ago, I made it quite clear. As the minister knows, in previous motions brought forward by me when we were in government, that support was made quite clear. So I don't know what the minister hopes to gain by another admission that I support this strategy.

Now, Mr. Chair, I want to thank the minister for his good comments, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate the need to keep this debate at a good level and avoid deterioration into something a little less friendly. That could happen this afternoon when the third party gets up, but we'll leave that to fate.

But I would like to say that I don't think the minister provided an answer that was very helpful with regard to my question. Mr. Chair, he will recall from the debate a month ago that I put something out there that I heard on the street. That was that the Liberal government intends to sideline the YPAS process once it is introduced in legislation because, really, that's all it committed to in its campaign material, and election promises don't really go further from that.

I'm aware that, with the makeup of the Liberal caucus, Mr. Chair, the majority would be in favour of sidelining the YPAS process. So, when the minister stands up and seemingly supports the process, it should not come as a surprise, then, to not get any commitment about the number of parks this Liberal government will create under the YPAS process. And that's exactly why I asked the question, to be frank - to try to get that on the record. Instead, we're getting a clouded response and the government is ducking out on this issue behind a public consultation process.

We expect the legislation to be brought forward in the fall, as this government has committed to, and we know there are several areas that are in the hopper, Mr. Chair. Of the total 23 ecoregions in the territory, which make up the YPAS process, I believe 15 or 16 still require protection. It's on record that the previous government had the position it would have produced two parks per year. By this point, had there not been a change in government a year ago, we would have had two more out of those 16 remaining protected areas completed - at least if what the government said it would do was done. Let's agree to that. And there'd be another one coming through now and another one later this year.

That brings us to about the stage where this Liberal government will be enshrining into legislation this whole process, something it promised it would do before actually creating parks. Mr. Chair, if you read the campaign material, it's actually quite ambivalent and self-serving from a political nature for a party that really doesn't want to create parks but make it sound like it wants to. It says something to the effect of: a Liberal government would not create any more parks until enshrining into legislation the process. Well, there you go. That speaks for itself. What it really means is: we'll use the legislative process to delay the creation of any more parks. If you uncode that commitment, that's what it means.

So, Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to accept that we won't see any progress for the first year and a half under this Liberal government's mandate, but that brings us to the end of this year, the end of 2001. I want to pick up from that point, because presumably we'll have YPAS legislation. We know that the department has proposed areas in the hopper and that a lot of the groundwork has been completed.

Mr. Chair, I would like the minister just to take us down the road from that point as to how he would like to see things proceed from an implementation perspective regarding YPAS. Let's hear what the minister has to say after the legislation is approved in this Chamber. What is his outlook for developing parks?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, Mr. Chair, I do believe that the member knows how sincere I am in my interests toward the environment. So I'm not really going to rise to the bait that we're going to sideline the process. I believe that both Premier Duncan and I, as minister, in the current debate on YPAS have continually reaffirmed this government's commitment to YPAS, but to also respect the economic needs of the territory in the process. Both of us respect the balance that's required to proceed.

Again, as I indicated in my opening comments, I'm not going to review what the previous government did. We are in the here now and we have to deal with what we're dealing with.

What we're attempting to do is to enshrine the existing process steps of a goal 1 area in legislation. That was a commitment that we made. In our consultations, we are looking at the wording of those process steps to see if we can clarify and build on the good work that has already been done. I will acknowledge that again.

So, that's where we're going with that. Meanwhile, we still have to respect the anxieties. As the member has suggested, too, there are some anxieties out there, too. That's where we're going with that.

The Premier has also committed that we wouldn't be moving toward goal 1 areas until that was done. We have also committed to the Yukon public that, over the next two years, we would indicate areas of interest in the remaining ecoregions - and I'm very sincere in this, and the Member for Kluane knows that - in order to assist the extraction resource sector, creating a degree of certainty, because we heard that they just wanted to know where they couldn't go or where those areas of interest were. Once those areas have been identified, if it is in direct conflict with the resource sector, depending on what that area of interest is working to protect, then it could be moved, it could be shifted, it could be accommodating. That is also respecting the concern that industry has about access to those areas, and the YPAS also accommodates that, despite what the Member for Klondike would like the general public to believe.

I know the Member for Klondike knows the YPAS. The principles of the YPAS are sound. The YPAS has not been challenged yet because we haven't gone through a full, complete implementation aspect toward a goal 1 area and that is what we are attempting to do. We are attempting to find balance, to recognize the interest of resource sector businesses, oil and gas exploration and placer mining.

All of those interests are not being discarded, and we are working very hard toward that end - openly and diligently.

What the member has asked is this: once we arrive at that stage where there is an increased comfort level in YPAS, where there is reasonable and open dialogue occurring and being allowed then to proceed in the actual implementation, right from 1 through 11, where there is increased opportunity within that process - at least three opportunities to continually consult, contact and reassure the public in an open and accountable way - how and where we are moving toward a goal 1 area - but we're not there yet. We're not there yet.

The department is working hard, and we have restructured the department to accommodate that. The Department of Economic Development is working in a very close and cooperative way to assure the resource extraction industry that we are concerned, that we are listening, and that we are hearing what their concerns are and are building those in to ensure that those concerns are entrenched through legislative means so that the processes identified toward goal 1 areas are followed and adhered to.

So that's where we are with YPAS. We are going to continue, and we are going to meet one-on-one, group-on-group, in whatever way people want us to do that.

We're going to be open and accountable and accommodating toward that end, Mr. Chair. So, no, we're not going to sideline the YPAS. I want to assure the Member for Kluane that we're not going to do that. In every other jurisdiction in Canada, they have protected areas. In every other jurisdiction in Canada, there is no cap. The cap issue is going to come up, I know, from the Member for Klondike, and the best answer we can provide is that there is no other jurisdiction in Canada that is looking at a cap because it's difficult, if not impossible, on the scientific position, to establish caps when you're working with ecological representation. The scientific basis is not there to support establishing a cap in that way.

So, to accommodate the question that I know is coming from the Member for Klondike, and I hope I'm helping the Member for Klondike at this time in his debate. I know it will come up again. Like the commitment I have made to the Member for Kluane, I'll commit to the Member for Klondike that I will try to be open, accountable and responsive to his questions.

With respect to the question the Member for Kluane asked, there is still some input that we're looking at on the process aspect, on the 11 steps, and the department and the Department of Justice are working on legislation now, so we'll see how that works out when it does finally make its way back to the department, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Chair, the minister did help out a little bit, but I was looking for a little more information than what he did provide regarding where we're going to be at the end of this year, when presumably the legislation will be enshrined and we'll be able to get on with actually making progress in creating the remainder of the protected areas into parks. I didn't hear anything about that. So I would ask the minister to give that more thought in providing an answer to that question and think about timelines. I'm very interested in getting timelines.

I also want to respond to something he said in his response regarding the comfort level in the public about YPAS. That relates back to my open remarks about the need for the government to fill that void of information out there regarding this initiative, to embark on a public education program. The minister is also the Minister of Education. What about a schools program, Mr. Chair? Now, that's a very effective way to filter information to the public through our youth. When children in school can begin to learn the facts about something, they themselves can begin to have discussions and further that understanding, bring it home and maybe discuss some of that information with their parents.

It wouldn't be a bad idea, Mr. Chair. We have to start somewhere. That's a suggestion I proposed one month ago, and we haven't heard anything from this minister about that.

I think that would help to ease the anxiety and increase the comfort level that he's talking about. When he's on his feet, I would like him to re-address the original question about where we're going to be at the end of this year. What about timelines? I would also ask him how he plans to increase the comfort level within the public about the YPAS.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, again, Mr. Chair, the Member for Kluane is correct. He did make the suggestion about public education and that is certainly something we're working on within the department. Also, there are already some education tools in the schools through the Project Wild program and the department officials administer it. So we are already doing some of what the member opposite is suggesting.

We are also working on timelines. The flow chart that I handed the member, even though it was dated earlier, is a chart that has been worked on. I did get it over to him as quickly as I found out he wanted it.

The department, through the new process that has been set up, has been working specifically on the aspects the member is asking about. As soon as they become available, I will provide them to the member. I am sure that if I don't follow through on the commitment, I will be reminded adroitly on that.

I will do that for the member. And the member has already indicated that he has some residual information from when they were in government, and I would like us to exchange information on that basis if he is willing to do that.

Mr. McRobb:      Why doesn't the minister ask one of his backbenchers to get up and ask that question during Question Period?

We saw a sweetheart question today, another one yesterday. Where is the YPAS? If it's that important to the minister, why doesn't he put it on the table? There is a question from one of the backbenchers that can certainly be asked. And the minister can stand up and read his briefing notes to which he speaks.

Now, Mr. Chair, I am still disappointed that we don't have any indication at all of any timelines. Perhaps I asked the question in too formal a setting, so I am going to re-ask the question somewhat less formally. I would like to know what this minister hopes to see in the future as far as timelines for the creation of parks go. What does he foresee? When would he like to see parks created, and when would he like to see them announced?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Just one correction for the Member for Kluane - I wasn't looking for a backbencher to ask me a question. This dialogue that is happening right here is between me and the Member for Kluane, and he alluded to the fact that he retained some information on YPAS when they were in government. All I am asking is that we share in a free flow and in an open and accountable way. That's all. I wasn't including backbenchers in that question. I was just suggesting that we work together on this project.

At the YPAS Public Advisory Committee meetings, we committed to identifying areas of interest over the next two years, with an effective date of the first of this month. The Premier indicated in April that the start date of the process would be at the end of April so, therefore, the first of May. So, in two years, we hope to have identified the remaining 16 areas of interest within the territory. That in itself is a huge task. We do know tentatively where some of those areas could go now. Now that we're back on track with land claims - we have one that we have announced recently and, hopefully, within the two-year period, there will be a number of others done.

As land claims are announced, then special management areas are announced as well - or, prematurely, as the Asi Keyi area, Mr. Chair. As those areas become identified and the designation of the special management areas are determined through land claims process, they may also accommodate ecoregion representation, right within the special management areas. So it wouldn't then be necessary - or there could be a withdrawal of an area of interest, as it would be accommodated by the special management area. So there is a lot of mix going on here, and the member knows that.

With respect to the timeline, I guess that the timeline commitment we now have is that, within two years, a massive project of identifying 16 areas of interest in the remaining ecoregions of the territory - and during that time, the economic development aspects of the territory must also be addressed, so that's why we have to get on and identify these areas of interest so people know what we're trying to protect - the ecological aspects. There are also geological aspects, like Coal River Springs, for instance - an incredibly unique feature that I don't think anyone in the territory would want to see lost. It's therefore a protected area. That's just an example, Mr. Chair, but there are some ecological areas that have to be protected because there are other factors; namely, flora/fauna interests. Depending on what the goal of protecting is, that will determine the urgency there as well.

I have committed to provide to the member opposite timeline charts, flow charts, as they become available, and I'll do that.

When are we going to be announcing parks? This government alone doesn't have total control over that because the land claims aspects, as they become known, will determine SMAs, which may very well be parks as well, so in all honesty I can't give the member definitive dates on that.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, did I hear the minister correctly that he said that within two years his government would identify the remaining 16 areas of interest? And does that mean there won't be any parks created until the spring of 2003?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      With all due respect to the member opposite, I apologize. I didn't hear the question.

Mr. McRobb:      Did I hear the minister correctly that, within two years, the Liberal government would be identifying the remaining 16 areas of interest, and does that mean that no new parks would be created before the spring of 2003?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Basically, that's correct, Mr. Chair. The areas of interest would be identified in the 16 remaining ecoregions. That's what the Premier and I committed to the YPAS Public Advisory Committee and, in all likelihood, at this particular time, there will be no parks clearly identified in that period.

Mr. McRobb:      Wow, isn't that something, Mr. Chair. It's a good thing the World Wildlife Fund has discontinued its grades for Canadian political jurisdictions as far as making progress on parks goes. We can just imagine how low the grade would be for this government in making no progress in the creation of parks for the first three years it's in government - zero parks created under the YPAS in its first three years. That's what the minister just admitted - zero.

Well, Mr. Chair, I can recall when the Liberals were in opposition how they chastised the previous government for any low grades it might have received from the World Wildlife Fund, even though at the time we were working to develop this strategy, which the minister himself acknowledges is one of the best in the country.

He knows that it is difficult to actually create progress on something for which the strategy is being designed in the meantime. But even then, Mr. Chair, our marks weren't all that low. Will the minister acknowledge that the World Wildlife Fund has discontinued its program of grading the jurisdictions and that the Yukon will not be getting graded this year or in the near future?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The Member for Kluane isn't quite correct. I had also indicated that, over the next two years as land claims come onstream, special management areas will also be identified and come to fruition - and identify parks. But I can't presuppose that, and the member knows that at this time. And within that jurisdiction, ecoregion representation within special management areas that become parks do become parks.

So, with all due respect - and I don't want to set up an antagonistic barrage here. I do want to answer the member's questions in general debate on Renewable Resources - I do. So let's drop the politics. Let's get on with me answering the member's questions in general debate on the budget. I want to do that and I want to do that in a very respectful way.

Now, I said I wasn't going to go back in time, and I don't want to do that because that doesn't get us anywhere. So I am respectfully asking the Member for Kluane to do the same thing. Let's get on with debating the budget. I will provide this additional information in the best way that I can. And I have, in the best way that I can right now, provided an answer on what we are going to do with parks. Parks could - they could pop up tomorrow. If there were a land claim tomorrow and a special management area that captured half a dozen ecoregions - and who knows, because anything is possible - then we wouldn't have to worry about six ecoregions.

They would be covered by a park, if that's a designation that comes out of the land claims process. And the member knows that.

So, that's the best answer I can give the member opposite.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, the minister could have easily answered my question 100 times in the time he took to go on. I asked him if he can confirm that the WWF grades have been discontinued. Because he won't answer it, I will answer for him. Yes, they have been discontinued and the World Wildlife Fund will not be providing a grade for this government's poor performance in the creation of parks this year or next year - not likely the year after either - unless this program is recreated within that organization.

It wasn't that hard to answer that question, Mr. Chair; the minister knew the answer. I would agree with him. Let's try to stay above board in this debate, move on and try to make some progress. If there's a simple question that he knows the answer to, a simple answer would suffice and we could make progress. I would urge him to do that, and I will keep that in mind, too, when putting the questions to him.

I would like to move now to what he announced one month ago regarding the restructuring of the department and the YPAS Public Advisory Committee and task group and so on. I would like to ask him if anything has changed since he described the changes to us in this House on April 11.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I don't believe that anything has changed from the outlined changes I made in the House at that time.

Mr. McRobb:      All right. Regarding the independent secretariat, can the minister tell us where exactly within the Yukon government that would be located?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The secretariat will now be located within the parks branch, and it is now called the parks and protected areas branch.

Mr. McRobb:      All right. So, the independent secretariat will be housed within the Department of Renewable Resources.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Just a slight correction, Mr. Chair. It's not independent. It's part of Renewable Resources within the parks and protected areas branch.

Mr. McRobb:      All right. The YPAS committee forwarded recommendations to the minister. I believe there were 18 recommendations. We received a copy of that following our motion debate on April 11. We didn't get the opportunity to integrate those recommendations into our discussion on that occasion. I would like to know what has happened to those recommendations. Has Cabinet approved them yet? Where does the government stand?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Cabinet has tabled those recommendations. The review of the recommendations is not yet completed, but once it is, it will be forwarded to the task group with further instruction.

Mr. McRobb:      When does the minister anticipate Cabinet will have those recommendations completed, and when does he anticipate they will be forwarded to the task group, and can he indicate for us the process beyond that?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      In all fairness to the member opposite, Mr. Chair, I do want to correct a statement that I made. The recommendations have moved through the task group into the working group and there is a request that the working group review and consult on those recommendations and come back to Cabinet with responses by early June.

Mr. McRobb:      According to this organizational flow chart, can the minister indicate which one of the blocks is the working group?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The flow chart shows that there are two ministers responsible for YPAS, right at the top, and the two ministers, of course, are accountable to Cabinet. Below the two ministers - the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Renewable Resources - is a task group comprised of three DMs - one from C&TS, one from Renewable Resources and one from Economic Development - and right below that is the management group. They are under the direction of two ADMs - an ADM from Renewable Resources and an ADM from Economic Development.

I would also like to bring to the member's attention that, within the parks and protected areas branch, there will be an entity - a person from Economic Development, an individual expert in assessment - that will also be housed within the secretariat in the parks and protected areas branch that will specifically look after the interests of the resource extraction centre.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, so, come June, we'll have the recommendations developed and they will go back to Cabinet. Is that correct? And will Cabinet be making decisions on those recommendations? I see the minister nodding in the affirmative.

Presumably from there it will be directed toward the development of the legislation and so on, respecting goal 1 areas and what have you, and we will be back here in the fall - probably in November and December - to deal with the legislation. Mr. Chair, from that point, there is about a year and a half to go to where the minister has indicated the next step would be - and that's the identification of the remaining protected areas.

Can the minister just describe what will take place in that window of a year and a half, and what does he envision will happen once those areas are identified to the public? Will there be wide-ranging public consultation after that? Because, Mr. Chair, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that now we're into the next government - not this government, but the next government. And I'm wondering what type of a reaction this minister expects from the public, especially because of the situation now and how this matter has become polarized. This reminds me of the B.C. Liberal Party saying that it supports land claims and, in fact, will commit to having a province-wide referendum on the matter, just to prove it.

So, I think the progress will get lost in the process on this matter. I would like the minister just to explain what will happen in that year and a half between the time that the legislation is passed and the spring of 2003 when the government identifies to the general public which ecoregions it would like to see. What happens in that interim period?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, even now, the parks and protected areas branch is pulling together information with respect to areas. There's a lot of information already accrued on unique areas in the territory within the ecoregions that warrant some degree of protection.

That is already happening. What we've given ourselves here is a two-year period. Again, that's not static. It's not a two-year waiting period and a big fanfare announcement over that time as we get information.

I should also let the member opposite know that there are 29 stakeholder groups that were involved in the meetings and the PAC group earlier this year. We want to keep those members involved, so we are going to continue to maintain contact with them. That is a charge of the management group - to maintain contact, and we want to keep them involved. That includes all people who were on the stakeholder group list.

We don't want a big announcement or big fanfare at the end of two years. We want to keep people involved, but our commitment is that these areas will be identified within two years, with their involvement. They are completely aware, at all times, of what the government is doing in this respect.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, that's good information, Mr. Chair, and it's too bad the government couldn't keep the opposition apprised of where it is at all times on this important initiative, because a lot of what the minister is saying is new information to us on this side. So I would encourage the minister to be more forthright, as indicated beforehand, in providing such information to us so we have a better idea of what to expect down the road on the YPAS process.

Now, we have heard a lot about the Yellowstone to Yukon initiative - Y2Y. I would like to know what this minister's position is on the Y2Y proposal.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I believe that the YPAS initiatives are tangibly part of that process. Are we taking any additional initiatives outside the territory? No.

Mr. McRobb:      What is the minister's position regarding the Y2Y initiative within the boundaries of the Yukon Territory?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I will just let the member opposite know that our initiatives on the YPAS are part of that process, so that's the government's position on the Y2Y.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, from what I can recollect on the Y2Y initiative, the important thing to glean from it is the need for connectivity between the protected areas in order to allow the migration of wildlife, the movement of wildlife along corridors between those protected areas.

We will recall from about a year and a half ago when a representative, Karsten Heuer, walked the trek to the Yukon for the purposes of advertising this initiative.

Yukoners were presented with information that indicated the need for the corridors. We were given examples, like in Banff, of how highways have cut off migration routes that wildlife need to survive and to propagate genetically and not just be confined to limited quantities and so on. I know that the minister knows about this stuff, and his answer neglects that important component of connectivity.

Now, I know he has a background in land use issues and so on, and he understands how some of this can be created. So I will expect him in his reply - and I won't ask any more questions on this, so whatever he gives, I'm willing to go with it. So, if he wants to be evasive in his answer, then let his answer stand. But I would like to know what his position is on the Y2Y initiative, and let's not ignore the important component of connecting these areas to allow for wildlife corridors. What can he tell us about that?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, again, I'm committed to providing the member opposite with the best answers I can. I think it's also important to state that, even though the projects are similar in nature, in that there is a respect for habitat and wildlife migration corridors in that aspect, YPAS and Y2Y are not the same project, basically. We do have our initiatives here in the territory with respect to recognizing and protecting areas.

The member opposite alluded to the fact that I'm not keeping him apprised of these issues or where the government is going on these things. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I invite the member opposite to give me a dingle at any time. I'll go downstairs - I have no problem with that - and brief him on what the government is doing about these things, or even provide a departmental briefing to the member opposite at any time.

The fact is - and the member knows well - that the YPAS itself does take into consideration the impacts on wildlife. The YPAS also addresses migration corridors and that kind of thing, so I wouldn't be telling the member anything new in that light. But then again, I offer the member opposite a briefing, departmental or by me, any time.

Mr. McRobb:      It's not so much a departmental briefing that would be helpful, Mr. Chair, as some indication of the political position from this government. We all know that departmental personnel cannot go there, so that's why I'm asking the minister. But I said I would take his answer for an answer, and I'm prepared to move now. I have some general questions about the department.

Can the minister indicate if there are any positions vacant and any new positions within this budget?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Through the corporate planning exercise that we went through in the last year, there were vacancies identified. There has been some movement of personnel within the department.

Mr. McRobb:      Is the minister intending to establish a conservation management section within the department?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      No, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, has the minister implemented a regional management structure for departmental services to be delivered in rural communities?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I believe there are existing regional management sections throughout the territory.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, back on June 29, the minister said he would be implementing a regional management structure for department services to be delivered in rural communities. The minister indicates that's already existing, so I would like to ask him to clarify just what commitment he made on June 29 and what the difference would be.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I'm not quite sure what the member is asking for. We have regional biologists in the field; we have regional conservation officers and offices in the field, as well. So those are already established, and I'm not quite sure what the member is referring to when he said that I was establishing regional offices that are already there.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, on an equal token, Mr. Chair, I'm not quite sure if I understand what the minister was talking about on June 29 when he said what he did. So maybe I'd like to ask the minister to revisit this in the coming weeks, and if he can get back to me - I see he's nodding his head - with some information to help further my understanding, I'd appreciate it.

Now, Mr. Chair, the department hasn't expanded its field services division in more than 10 years, and in the meantime has probably tripled its policy section. Now, I know people who are concerned about the diminishing field time. I'm talking about the true field time served by conservation officers. Is the minister concerned about this, and what is he planning to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, I know that the member opposite is eventually going to get around to devolution, so I'll just presuppose the member opposite's position.

There were two positions that were no longer required in parks and outdoor recreation, whereas field services, as the member has indicated, has been understaffed for years. The field services branch is taking on the responsibility for enforcement of the Wilderness Tourism Licensing Act, as well, Mr. Chair, and more enforcement in the campgrounds and other protected areas as required.

There were two FTEs transferred from the parks branch to the field services branch to accommodate that. So I hope that answers the member opposite's question.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, I would like the minister to expand a little bit on what he would like to see happen to replenish some of that important field time. I know he understands that. He is someone who has spent a lot of time out in the field himself. I guess it wasn't left field or right field, but more of a centre field position.

Regardless, the minister knows what I'm talking about. He understands the importance of it, because a lot of people who enter the biology field seem to move from collecting information out in the field to more behind-the-desk types of positions. I would like to know what the minister is prepared to do to bring people back out to the land so that they can reconnect to what really is important to this department. Does he have any ideas or expectations in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I thank the member opposite for the question. He is right. I have spent a great deal of time in the field. Unfortunately, at this moment I am stuck behind a desk, just as the member opposite is. I know the member opposite lives in a wonderful part of the territory, an incredibly beautiful part of the territory.

One thing we are doing in other initiatives, thinking out-of-the-box-type stuff - one of the most successful programs within the department is the wildlife viewing program, of course. Those wildlife viewing kiosks and informative platform areas are an incredible attraction not only to tourists but to Yukoners alike. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, just at the beginning of the celebration of swans, there was an announcement of a new opening. Unfortunately, there was no ribbon and there was no cake, but I went out and enjoyed the vista from the new platform at the Yukon River bridge crossing.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      And I was accompanied, that's true, by the Minister of Tourism. Again, there was no cake or ribbon cutting at that time.

So there is the potential here to get people out on the land. One of the things we did was to extend the campground season, Mr. Chair, so that campers could get out earlier and stay out later and work on the fringe. We're looking at -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Speed it up, is that it? Well, I'm trying to give the member opposite a full answer to his question, and now he's waving to somebody, so I don't know.

Mr. McRobb:      I was waving to his deputy minister, Mr. Chair, who stuck his head through the gallery doors up there.

Mr. Chair, I wasn't curious as to the time spent out on the land or in the campgrounds by the minister. I was concerned about the biologists in the department and so on, because we know how the Liberals feel about getting out of this Legislature and the shenanigans that they attempted to pull off yesterday. We know where they would rather be, so let's not go back there.

The minister mentioned devolution. I want to ask him if his department is ready, what it's doing, what changes will occur, will there be policy changes, and so on? What can he tell us about devolution?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I am trying to accommodate a couple of individuals over there - one who wants full and complete answers and one who wants me to speed up, fast forward. So I will try and get it done, and I'm sure my colleagues on this side of the House would hope that I wouldn't be so verbose as well.

As the member is well aware, the devolution aspect is a huge project. Now he is hiding under the desk. Gary, the answer isn't that bad.

Apologies, Mr. Chair, in the lightness of the moment I lost -

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Chair:    Mr. McRobb, on a point of order.

Mr. McRobb:      Point of order, Mr. Chair. I was praying that the minister would conclude.

Chair:  Mr. Eftoda, you may continue.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, Mr. Chair, I know that the rules of the House don't allow us to move our mandibles in a rhythmic fashion, but I see the member opposite is doing that. I can only allude to one thing, but that's okay.

Devolution is a huge project and the department - in the restructuring within the department that we did just go through - a large part of that is in anticipation of devolution.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, I am not sure if that answer was really adequate considering the serious nature of devolution and the changes that it will bring to the department. I would invite the minister, if he wants, to forward some good information to me in the near future to expand on that response. I would more than appreciate it.

I would now like to move to agriculture. Can the minister indicate what the status is of the agricultural lands review? When does he expect the report to be released? And was he successful in lobbying the federal government for money to help promote agriculture in the territory?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, with all due respect to the member opposite, I want to provide full and complete answers, but he has to be listening to the answers I'm giving. And I want to do that because I don't want to get into a paper exchange with the member opposite.

There has been a total and comprehensive evaluation of the agricultural and grazing lease policies, and it is now complete. The evaluation reports were released to the public in July of last year, as a matter of fact. An interdepartmental working group has reviewed the recommendations and prepared a government response - proposed revisions to the policy that will be forwarded to Cabinet by mid-June.

The agriculture branch has also been working with Trans Northern Consulting on a discussion paper leading to a revised policy. It is planned to have revised policies out to the public for review in the fall of 2001. The Agricultural Planning and Advisory Committee has also been reviewing the recommendations in the evaluation reports and will be reviewing the discussion paper in the middle of this month.

As I had indicated in my opening comments, the federal minister and provincial ministers and territorial ministers of agriculture will be visiting the territory. They are looking very much forward to it at the end of June, and we are hoping to be able to announce at that time some positive news for the agricultural industry here.

Mr. McRobb:      Mr. Chair, I'd remind the minister to remind his federal counterparts to not forget the suitcase full of money, because we wouldn't want to see him strike out on his lobbying efforts to help promote the agricultural industry in the territory, as he promised he would do on June 29 of last year.

Mr. Chair, I've got a few questions regarding wildlife in the territory. Can the minister indicate which boards and committees are currently working on consultation policy or whatever initiatives for the department. For example, we know the Fish and Wildlife Management Board is working on the Wildlife Act. That's the type of response I'm looking for from the minister. Can he indicate which boards and committees are doing what for the department?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, in all fairness, Mr. Chair, I would probably have to get back to him in writing on that, but he knows well that it's quite extensive and interrelated.

Mr. McRobb:      That's fine, Mr. Chair. As long as I get the information in a reasonable period of time, I don't have a problem. Can the minister also indicate what issues are being dealt with aside from any major topics, like the Wildlife Act,? If there are particular issues he could identify, as an example? Can the minister give us an update on the Wildlife Act review, or maybe something he can also include in that information when he gets back to me is the timelines for these reviews. Would he be able to do that? I see he's nodding his head in the affirmative. Mr. Chair, I'm fine with that.

If he could also indicate whether there will be final reports coming out of these consultations and what they will result in, I would appreciate that.

I also note that the Environment Act review is something I would like the minister to touch on when he gets back to me with this information.

The minister, in his upfront comments, mentioned a deer population study. I know that he previously indicated that there would be a mule deer population study. I would appreciate it if he could get back to me with some information on that.

Regarding the bison herd in the territory, I would like to know what changes, if any, the minister is considering for next year, particularly with respect to the department's desire to see the number of cows reduced. Is he considering extending the season, for instance? Is he considering increasing the size of the harvest? If so, how would he do that? Would he get back to me with that type of information?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      As I indicated to the Member for Kluane, I am willing to provide any information that is public at all. If I could respectfully request that he provide me with a list of the information that he wants, I will respond to it, just so that I can make sure that I cover all the points he has asked for.

Mr. McRobb:      All right. Well, the minister can take the list from Hansard. If there is anything in addition, I will undertake to get it to him in the next week, let's say.

On the matter of predator control, does the minister have a policy on predator control that differs at all from what he indicated on June 29, 2000? I keep going back to that date, Mr. Chair, because that's when we debated the department at the first opportunity during the review of the budget for 2000-01.

Has he changed his position at all on predator control and is he anticipating any new programs in the future?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      June 29 was after we had only been in office seven weeks or so and, of course, we jumped right into the budget. I will have to reference the debate that had occurred at that time, to make sure that what the member is asking for I can provide adequately. On predator control, of course, there has been the non-lethal wolf control program out in the Champagne-Aishihik area to assist in the regeneration of moose populations out there. If he wants more details on that, I could certainly provide it. Predator control of another fashion I don't believe has been announced since what I reported on June 29 of last year.

Mr. McRobb:      I asked the minister if he could indicate whether he is anticipating any new predator control programs in the future. If he could respond to that?

Also, back on, I believe it was, December 14, 2000, which was a second opportunity to review the department with this minister, which was in reply to the supplementary budget in the fall, the minister said he was working on a new policy. Can he indicate where that is at?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The non-lethal predator control program in the Champagne-Aishihik area is still underway and will be, I believe, for another year.

Yes, I do believe that it is still going to take some time to work on the program and to evaluate the success. As I indicated in my opening remarks, as well, this program is one of the first pioneered in the country for a wolf control program and is being watched quite intensely by other wildlife management resource sectors as to its success. I'd like to report that it is a very successful initiative so far. But I will provide the member opposite with the current status of that program.

Mr. McRobb:      All right. That's good, Mr. Chair. I'd also like to let the minister know that I did attend a presentation by the regional biologist in the Haines Junction area - I believe it was last fall. It was a very informative presentation, with a slide show and updates on what was happening. The biologist also discussed moose behaviour in the integration with other animals. It was very interesting. If the minister hasn't seen it, he might want to catch it at some point.

Mr. Chair, back on December 14, he said that he wanted to design a new predator control policy that's "meaningful and comprehensive". Those were his words. What I would like to know is when we can expect this policy, how this government intends to develop it, and if it will include public consultation and so on. What can he do to enlighten us about that?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I thought I just alluded for the member opposite that it's probably going to be based - and this is still on predator control?

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, because of the program that is presently occurring in the Champagne-Aishihik area - and it is probably going to be another year before this program is assessed. Depending on the results, policy will be initiated. But the policy itself is not static and that is why we've moved into this area of non-lethal predator control program. We are hoping that the success will impact on the overall policy of predator control.

Mr. McRobb:      Okay, I think the minister's response was geared more to the program and not the policy I asked about. I asked when we might expect a new predator control policy from this government and how he intends to do that and will he involve the public through a public consultation process?

Can the minister improve our understanding of what he intends to do?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, most certainly, policy will be determined after public consultation. I will, if the member would allow me to, get back to him on that - the status of existing policy plus when we're proposing changes to that policy. If there are changes, of course there will be public consultation.

Mr. McRobb:      All right, Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for that more informative answer.

I want to turn to the pipeline - the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline proposal - and start by asking him if he agrees with the Premier's words in the budget speech on February 22 this year that the regulatory approvals are in place, the environmental reviews are completed and there is a treaty in place. I want the minister to tell us: is this a closed deal or is it an open deal? Which way is it?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Chair, I do believe the Premier stated that there are or there had - well, along the existing pipeline corridor through south Yukon, there were extensive environmental assessments done along the whole of the route. Of course it has been recognized that that happened some time ago, but that did assist in determining a treaty between Yukon and Alaska. But I do also believe that there has been recognition that times have changed since then and that there would, in all probability, have to be additional assessments done along the final chosen route.

So I do believe that has been acknowledged by this government.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Chair, that response wasn't too helpful in trying to improve our understanding of where this government is. On one hand, it says that it's a done deal but we're getting indications at other times that there will be some consultation regarding the environmental review and the regulatory approvals and so on.

If the minister could expand on that as we go along here, I'd appreciate any more information he can provide.

I'd like to know what, if any, resources have been set aside to examine the impacts of the proposed natural gas pipeline. I ask that, Mr. Chair, because we know the Department of Economic Development seems to get hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to promote the pipeline but the Department of Renewable Resources doesn't seem to be doing much as far as examining the environmental effects of this project.

Can the minister indicate exactly what resources have been assigned and what the department is doing?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      There is an existing interdepartmental group. It's currently being led by Economic Development. As the member well knows, there is not a project yet. But, in a positive anticipation of that project occurring, Economic Development is conducting reviews of the pipeline, and the department has a representative on this group and is currently in the process of assessing what will be required when the project is announced.

The department has not been given direction, per se, on this. And, in large measure because the project has not been announced, a consultant has been hired to gather all existing environmental information with respect to providing assistance and guidance regarding the government's position. So there are a lot of things that are underway, but with the caveat that more is going to happen once a project has been announced.

So the department is not currently doing any assessment work. As I have already indicated, there is no project and we don't know when the pipeline will proceed, but we're eagerly awaiting the announcement.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Chair, assuming that there is a project, as this government has gambled there will be, because virtually all its economic eggs are in the pipeline basket. It wasn't too long ago that the handle started coming off the basket. We know about that. At the present time, it looks like they have sewed it back on, but we'll see what happens down the road.

Assuming there is a project, we know that there have been considerable discussions within government and the departments regarding the preparation for this project. I would like to ask the minister to indicate what opportunities there will be for Yukoners to provide their input into this project? I'm talking about meaningful input, not input after the decisions have been made, but input into how the project would proceed. What opportunities will there be for Yukoners to do that?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      One of the essential ingredients in the discussion of the route selection is the preparedness of our government with the assistance of the Government of Canada. A number of initiatives are occurring. One is the report being prepared or the assimilation of existing environmental information by consultants. But once the project has been announced, there is going to be a considerable amount of time between that period and when the pipeline happens. Of course there is going to be a flurry of involvement by Yukoners.