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. McLachlan: I rise today on behalf of the Yukon Legislative Assembly to pay tribute to a very colourful figure in Yukon's early political history. Mr. Norman S. Chamberlist, who passed away last week in Prince George, was first elected to the 19^th Territorial Council in 1961. The Territorial Council, as it was known in those days, was the forerunner to the present Yukon Legislative Assembly. Mr. Chamberlist served in that capacity for one year as the Member for Whitehorse East. He tried his hand again at public office in 1967 and 1970, again winning the seat each time for the riding of Whitehorse East. His greatest achievement came, however, in the 1970 election when he became one of only two elected members to form part of the five-person Executive Committee that administered Yukon in those days. This was to be the start of our present Cabinet system.

Because of his very early interest in medicare issues, Mr. Chamberlist was given responsibility for the portfolio of health, welfare and rehabilitation. He was very devoted to parliamentary procedures during his time in the Territorial Council. Perhaps less known, but just as equally important, he also served public office on early Whitehorse City councils prior to his time on Territorial Council. He still stands as somewhat of a hero to anybody who has ever had to pay a parking ticket in the City of Whitehorse. It was his successful challenge to a City of Whitehorse parking bylaw that proved that the streets of the city had never successfully been transferred to local authority and all parking metres had to be removed until the legalities could be straightened out.

In 1960, using his own funds from an electrical contracting company that he owned, he submitted a salvage bid to buy the old, old Whitehorse General Hospital when others were asking for money from government to tear it down. He used the material to build one of Whitehorse's original hotels on 2^nd Ave. and called it the Normic Hotel after his name, Norm, and his wife, Mickey. It still stands today on the same site and is renamed the Roadhouse.

He took particular pride in telling all who would listen of his early days, sailing for the British Royal Navy in World War II. He was extremely proud that his birthdate of October 21 was the same day as the historic victory at the Battle of Trafalgar.

He was predeceased by his wife, Mickey, and one son, Dennis. He is survived by two sons, two daughters-in-law, three grandsons and two granddaughters.

He passed away on October 22, one day after his 83^rd birthday.

Speaker:      Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Speaker:      Under tabling returns and documents, I have for tabling the report of the Auditor General of Canada on the public accounts of the Government of the Yukon for the year ending March 31, 2001.

Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I have two documents for tabling: the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement working copy, dated October 30, 2001, and the Public Accounts 2000-01 of the Government of the Yukon Territory for the year ended March 31, 2001.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I have a legislative return in response to a question by Mrs. Peter on Thursday, October 25, 2001.

Speaker:     Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Is there a ministerial statement?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I inform the House that the Northern Affairs program devolution transfer agreement has been formally approved with notice to that effect issued by the federal government late Monday.

A copy of the completed document was tabled in Parliament and the Senate for information purposes earlier today.

A moment ago I tabled a working copy of the document with the Yukon Legislative Assembly. Given the complexity of this agreement, arrangements have been made to brief opposition members later today.

Devolution is the transfer of the responsibility for managing the Yukon's land, water, minerals and forests from Canada's Northern Affairs program to the Government of the Yukon. While the Northern Affairs program devolution is but the latest of a series of transfers that span the history of the Yukon, it is one of the most significant for us with respect to our political evolution.

It has long been recognized by both Ottawa and Whitehorse that Yukon control over Yukon lands and resources will be more responsive to Yukon needs and priorities than the present federal system. Yukon control will result in significant social and economic benefits over the long term. Yukon's goal has always been to ensure that the territory has the ability to manage in a fiscally sound manner. In the transfer agreement, we have ensured that the Yukon has the same ability to manage as Indian and Northern Affairs now has with built-in fiscal protections to carefully manage risk.

Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell at length today on the many highlights of the transfer agreement. Suffice it to say, there is much to celebrate and much to contemplate. Our government will be diligent in ensuring that in the days and months to come, Yukoners will have the opportunity to learn about the contents of the transfer agreement.

Mr. Speaker, today is an important day for Yukoners. With the completion of the transfer agreement, a critical step of devolution is done.

Next will come the federal introduction and passage of the Yukon Act. With these building blocks expected to be in place by Christmas, our transition work will begin in earnest. We will be fully prepared for the transfer well in advance of the effective date of April 1, 2003.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge and express our heartfelt thanks to Yukon's team of negotiators who have worked so diligently to meet this goal. My congratulations to each of them as individuals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Applause

Mr. Fairclough:      I am pleased to respond to this ministerial statement. It has been a long time in waiting for Yukon people. They have been asking for many years to see programs devolved down from the federal government to Yukon and that we take control of our lands, forests and resources. Finally it has come to a conclusion, and I am pleased to see that.

When in government, the NDP worked very hard on devolution, and what we see before us today is very little change from when the previous government left office. There is some cleanup of wording, some monies going to First Nations but very little change. I am glad that the Premier is able to bring a statement like this to the House. But what I think is inappropriate is for government to discuss this with the media without first talking and bringing it forth to the opposition.

I'm sure that some people may have questions in regard to devolution - maybe some serious questions in regard to those who have signed on to the agreement. For example, Council of Yukon First Nations has signed on to the agreement with conditions having First Nation final agreements come forward. This may come up at a later date. I urge the Premier, now that this is out of the way, to get on with negotiations and work hard with the departments to make sure that government is ready for devolution. We need to see that happen very quickly

In conclusion, I hope that the Premier does not get derailed again in regard to negotiations with other processes that are in place like renewal. This side of the House, the official opposition, supports devolution and we are glad to see it come forward.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, while champagne corks may be popping in the Premier's office over this deal, Yukoners should be made aware that the development transfer agreement is one of the worst sell-outs of Yukon interests in our history. This agreement effectively makes Yukoners caretakers in our own land. Under the DTA, Yukoners accept the environmental liability for managing Yukon lands and resources that will still be owned by the federal government, but Yukon governments in their right mind would accept $20 million as the federal government's fair share of the environmental liability on Yukon lands, managed by the federal government since the territory was created. The federal government's estimate of the cost of environmental liability of the Faro mine alone is over $100 million.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you look at the environmental cost that the federal government was imposing on the Keno mine in Elsa. Federal government, through its environmental requirements - which were pointless I might add - effectively bankrupted United Keno Hill Mines Ltd. Now it appears that it is the Yukon government's turn. If the Premier and her colleagues are celebrating this agreement here today, it won't compare to the celebration going on in the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs office in Ottawa for having duped Yukoners.

The DTA represents one of the worst examples of federal offloading in Canadian history. The Yukon government is to receive $2 million for 10 years to cover environmental liability - big deal. The Premier is going to tell Yukoners, "Don't worry, be happy. It's great. The federal government is accepting its environmental responsibility for existing mines, such as Faro and BYG. Not to worry." What she won't tell Yukoners is that the federal government won't be putting any real money down now to meet these costs, other than the $2 million per year. When the day comes, however, when these real costs have to be addressed, the federal government will be long gone. Mark my words. Every Yukon government has had extreme difficulty in getting the federal government to pay for services that it is legally obliged to pay for.

First Nations health care comes readily to mind. The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to pay for First Nations health services, but it took successive Yukon governments years to make DIAND pay. And there are currently more problems in this area alone, Mr. Speaker.

These costs for health care are going to be peanuts compared to the potential costs for the federal government's environmental liability.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at another environmental cost area where Yukoners are suing for land and resources that we don't own - that being fire suppression. After five years, the Yukon government assumes the full cost of fire suppression in the territory. This is bound to be a major cost. There are other costs that may appear small now but could be substantial later on. One example is the current cost of environmental assessment, which is listed at $1,553,000 under the development assessment process legislation coming into force. Under DAP, there are already proposals to create six regional offices, and guess who is going to have to pay for all this increased government regulation? You're right, Mr. Speaker. Yukoners are. The Yukon taxpayers will be left with nothing in the bank.

Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me going into all the potential pitfalls of the DTA, but another major issue in addition to the land ownership and environmental liability issues must be mentioned, and that is the lack of federal recognition of Yukon's offshore boundary in the Beaufort Sea.

The Liberal government has recognized the offshore boundary between Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, but it will not recognize the Yukon/Northwest Territories offshore boundary. The oil and gas potential in what should be Yukon's portion of the Beaufort Sea could be substantial, but this novice Liberal government isn't prepared to fight for Yukoners' rights and interests.

The Premier and her colleague are more interested in pleasing their Liberal masters in Ottawa and signing away Yukoners' rights and interests. They will go down in history as supporting -

Speaker:      Order please. Under the new rules that have been agreed to in the House, the ministers and opposition members are now subject to a four-minute time limit on the statements and their responses. I advise the leader of the third party that his time has expired.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The Member for Mayo-Tatchun indicated that the former government had worked very hard on the devolution transfer agreement, and I would concur with that. The former government leader continually offered both the former leader of the Yukon Party and me, the former leader of the official opposition, briefings on the progress of the devolution transfer agreement as time progressed.

I personally attended a number of those briefings and continued that practice, and the members opposite have been advised of the details as progress has been made. The fact is, however, that this government has finally achieved what was not concluded before us. We have achieved a devolution transfer agreement, and I thank some of the members opposite for their support for this important step for all of Yukon. I appreciate that.

The media release was issued in Ottawa late yesterday afternoon. It was signed off and contains quotes from me, the Grand Chief, Mr. Schultz, as well as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. All of these individuals have expressed their support for devolution and for the devolution transfer agreement. It is a complex agreement and there is a great amount of detail, which will be fully provided and fully discussed with Yukoners over the coming time period.

Unfortunately, I would encourage Yukoners to examine that information prior to giving any credence to the Member for Klondike, as he clearly has not grasped all of the details of this agreement. I thank him for clearly expressing his complete lack of support for this important step for Yukoners.

The real issue for Yukoners is who controls the land, not who has underlying title. Administration and control, not ownership, provides the authority for government disposition of resources. It is a duly elected Yukon government that will be fully accountable to Yukoners for things like forestry permits, mine permitting and signing water licences. And that is incredibly important, and it's a historic day for Yukoners. We are fully accountable to the people we serve and represent, and I'm proud of the work of the public servants and those who have gone before me in achieving a most significant and historic agreement for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:      This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fairclough:      My question is for the Minister of Education. Earlier today, the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations announced that Council of Yukon First Nations' education department has closed its doors, and he has laid the blame squarely on the feet of the minister for refusing to fund further First Nations participation in the Education Act review. The minister also refused Council of Yukon First Nations' request for more time to provide input into that review process - so much for the good relationship between First Nations and the Yukon government. Why is this minister refusing to provide Council of Yukon First Nations the tools it needs to fulfill its role as one of the partners in education?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      It is a pleasure to answer the members opposite's question on this issue.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, First Nations are one of our most important partners in education. They have been intimately involved in the review of the Education Act for the past two and a half years.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, when his party was in government, provided the Council of Yukon First Nations with $50,000 to fund their participation in the Education Act review. After we took office, we provided CYFN with an additional $50,000. The Education Act Review Steering Committee has largely completed its work, and I expect to be receiving a report from the committee in the very near future.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the First Nation Education Commission. The Yukon Education Act defines the role of the central Indian organization authority. That central authority is the First Nation Education Commission, which this minister is refusing to fund. So, if the government is not crying poverty, is the minister saying that he is prepared to see the Education Act amended so that there is no central Indian education authority representing the interests of First Nation students and their parents?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      We did fund, just as the previous government did fund, CYFN in their direct involvement in the Education Act that has been occurring for well over two years. And First Nations, Mr. Speaker, have fully participated in this process and have contributed significantly to this process. The Education Act Review Steering Committee has largely completed its work. It has submitted a draft report. It has received public comment on the draft recommendations, including comment from First Nations directly, and I expect to receive the final report very soon.

Mr. Fairclough:      The minister is either avoiding the question or not hearing it properly. When I asked him about the funding to the Education Commission itself as an essential education authority, the minister constantly refers back to the Education Act review for which he is not extending time for more input from First Nations, even though it has been asked for. Why is this government going that route? I would have to say that they have another agenda. Council of Yukon First Nations is crying out for help. They have asked the federal government and the territorial government for help, so why isn't this government looking at addressing this issue because it is not one that had been recognized way down the road, months ago? They have come to a point where they are no longer functioning, so this commission needs money. So where is -

Speaker:      Question please. Order please. Question.

Mr. Fairclough:      So where is this government going to go with funding the First Nation Education Commission?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I have answered the question twice. Our job is not to fund the commission for ongoing work, and we funded specifically for their participation directly in the Education Act review. We do take our responsibility very, very seriously in providing a high quality education for all Yukon children. First Nations are one of our partners in education and they have been involved in the review of the Education Act from the very beginning - over two and a half years ago, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said to the member opposite, when they were in government they provided Council of Yukon First Nations with $50,000. When we came into power, we also provided an additional $50,000. The Education Act Review Steering Committee has nearly completed the task it was charged with and I will be expecting their comments soon.

Question re:  Septic tank leakage

Mr. Keenan:      Today I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Now that the minister has been properly briefed on the issue that I raised with him yesterday, he knows that the CSA has completed its investigation. It has determined that some of the tanks sold in the Yukon are substandard. So once again, I would like to ask the minister what he is doing to help Yukon families determine if they have faulty tanks or not.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, we take this issue very, very seriously. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to correct misinformation. YTG is a regulator of CSA standards. We began this role in 1999. At different stages of septic system installation, there are different responsibilities.

The supplier, the owner, the installer, the CSA and the environmental health officer each have a responsibility. Our Yukon government regulations are in place to ensure that the health of Yukoners is not endangered. CSA is responsible for policing its standards and taking corrective action if there is a problem with the standards, Mr. Speaker. We continue to follow up with CSA to ensure that they are investigating the complaints. Using the information we have at this point, we are not aware of an environmental health concern.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I've just got to throw that country song right back to the minister. The minister is absolutely wrong. For the minister not to take his portfolio seriously and to be sloughing it off and just saying that the CSA is the regulator is absolutely wrong. The minister is the regulator, and we do have a problem that is out there in the Yukon, and it's in the city. It's all over the Yukon Territory.

Now, in all fairness, the department has only been the regulator since 1999. Yesterday, I said that 160 to 200 tanks have been put into the ground annually. Now, I guess the minister can say that only from 1999 to present day is the problem, but the real problem is that there is not even a process in place for accountability to see if the tanks are leaking or not leaking or living up to the standards.

So I would like to ask the minister: will the minister commit to putting such a process of accountability in place for the future so that we'll know exactly what the extent of any problem is?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Now the member opposite is talking about 100 to 200 tanks being replaced annually. I hope that is what he is saying, not that there are 100 to 200 tanks at fault here. I hope that's not what the member opposite is saying, because we know those are not the facts.

I appreciate the opportunity, again, to correct what I think we are doing. We are the regulators, not CSA. CSA has their stamp on a tank. We accept the CSA standards because that is the standard across Canada. Of course, as I said earlier, the supplier, the owner, the installer and the government environmental health officer each have their own responsibilities. We have followed our due diligence around this.

Of course, CSA is responsible for policing their own qualities, not us. We don't police what they do. We make sure that they put the fields in properly. We make sure they follow due process in ensuring that there are safety standards around how those tanks and the fields are being used. So we continue to follow up with CSA. It would appear that the members opposite have far more information about CSA than we have.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard on this because we know this is a very serious issue.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, for once I can agree with the minister opposite. We do have more information than the minister has and that's absolutely appalling. What I will do is I will invite the minister to sit down with me and the proponents - with whom he has refused to meet again, even after he realized that the problem was large. I will invite the minister to sit down in my office with the proponents to properly brief the minister so that we might be able to find a solution to the problem that is plaguing the Yukon. We have examples across the nation of water quality problems and we have had deaths arise from such problems.

What I need here is leadership - not arrogance, but leadership - from this minister to put into place a process of accountability; a process that we will be able to find out exactly where the problem lies, how much it is going to take to fix and fix the problem.

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

Mr. Keenan:      Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to know again, will the minister give instructions to his department and resource his department so that we might go out and find out where the problems actually lie? Will the minister do that?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Just to correct the member opposite, I have met with the so-called proponents, as the member has said. I have met with them at least once, and I know our department has met with them many times. So that information is very accurate as well - that we have been in discussions with the proponents, both those who supply the tanks from outside and those who make tanks here. For the member to assume that we haven't met with them, we have. We have been meeting with them on a regular basis.

But again, as I shared with the members opposite, our suppliers are required to provide CSA-standard septic tanks and septic field materials. We are required to do that, Mr. Speaker.

As well, the environmental health officers can inspect installations of septic tanks prior to them being covered over. They have to do that. This is part of it. They have to have a picture of the whole area. That's part of the file. The installers of the system must also ensure that they notify the environmental health officer for approval to cover. That's a fact.

Our regulations are in place to ensure that the health of Yukoners is not in danger. CSA is responsible for policing its own standards, Mr. Speaker, and taking corrective action if there's a problem with the standards. We continue to follow up with CSA to ensure they are investigating the complaint.

Using the information we have at this point, we are not aware of an environmental health concern. The member keeps saying there is -

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

Question re:  Protected areas strategy

Mr. Jenkins:      I have a question today for the Minister of Renewable Resources.

The chief spokesperson for the group of eight business organization opposing the protected areas strategy in its present form recently stated that the strategy represents the largest land alienation in the history of the Yukon. If the head of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society had his way, this would certainly be true. CPAWS is, after all, wanting 30 percent of the Yukon being turned into parks, much more land than the Yukon First Nations will receive under their land claims settlement.

Does the minister believe that the Yukon can sustain a 30-percent withdrawal of land from development and still retain some semblance of a viable economy?

Further, does the minister accept the findings of the CPAWS poll that 61 percent of Yukoners favour this high level of land alienation to create more parks in the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      As usual the Member for Klondike managed to scurry in, I think, three questions under the first one, so I will first state to the member opposite that we do not comment on the results of polls. The only poll that really does count, as he is aware of, is the one on election day. However, the poll does raise a number of other questions about the Yukon protected areas strategy. Our government has introduced the Yukon Parks and Land Certainty Act which enshrines YPAS in legislation. The public wants to know - in fact the public deserves an answer to another question and I would love the members from the official opposition to stand up and state their position on Yukon protected area strategy.

Mr. Jenkins:      The chief spokesman for the group of eight business and industry representatives has noted that the minister's new Yukon Parks and Land Certainty Act makes a combination for trapping and outfitting in territorial parks but makes no accommodation for other economic interests. The minister is on record as claiming that he offered to meet with business and industry over their concerns, but the meeting scheduled for August couldn't be arranged. Why didn't the minister offer to meet later in the fall as the group of eight requested? Why did he ignore their request?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Oh, I love it, Mr. Speaker. I just love it. At yesterday's meeting, if the Member for Klondike would have got the facts correct from the individual whom he was meeting, he would have learned that the letter that the member had sent back to me with respect to the meeting was that I would meet at their wish - at their time - and that offer is still open. I have never closed the door on sitting down and meeting and talking with these individuals, and I have asked, person to person, the current president of the Yukon Chamber of Commerce numerous times to come sit down and have a chat. The spokesperson I have chatted with on several occasions and have asked him to come on in and we'll sit down and talk about the Yukon protected areas strategy. Both the Minister of Economic Development and I are more than willing to sit down with these folks at any time and explain the protected areas strategy and its place within the Yukon Parks and Land Certainty Act.

As a matter of fact, it was just on Friday that the director of the Chamber of Mines said that he didn't have a problem with the new act, so it would be interesting for the Member for Klondike to also mention that in this House.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note that there are two sides to every story, one from the group of eight, another one from the minister. They don't jibe.

Now, on page 5 of the Liberal election platform, which deals with creating certainty, it promises to ensure access to land that is available for the development of the forestry, wilderness tourism and mining industries. Why did the minister leave out both mining and forestry from this commitment in his proposed new park legislation and choose instead to cater solely to CPAWS' demand to turn 30 percent of Yukon into parks land?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I love it, because the member is already starting to put incorrect information into the minds of the public. We have never agreed to a cap, Mr. Speaker, and I have said that repeatedly in this House, but he is already starting his messaging about getting 30 percent of Yukon. We're not accommodating CPAWS on that issue, and we're not accommodating the mining industry on indicating a cap, Mr. Speaker. Is that clear enough to the member opposite? No, because we'll hear about it time and time again in here - time and time again. And the fabrications will continue.

The Member for Klondike said that there are two sides to every story, and, in fact, every time the Member for Klondike stands up, there is a new version of the story. So there are many stories, Mr. Speaker, that go on and on and on, and with his wish, they become fact. Well, Mr. Speaker, that isn't going to be the case.

Question re:  Alaska Highway reconstruction at Marsh Lake

Mr. McRobb:      Well, I would like to follow up on the line of questioning regarding the chipsealing of the Marsh Lake section of the Alaska Highway.

After reviewing the minister's responses to the questions last week, it's obvious that she is confused about what the question on this issue really is. My questions were based on why three-quarters of a million dollars was wasted on BST rather than repairing problems with the road. But her responses were reading a briefing note on why it was chipsealed rather than paved. For some reason the minister insists on scratching the surface of a much deeper problem.

Now, on Tuesday of last week she said that the contract had been completed to her satisfaction, but on Thursday she said that the crews and contractor were out there inspecting the road and trying to overcome difficulties. If indeed the contract has been completed, can the minister tell us exactly what those difficulties are?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      If we had put an asphalt surface on instead of BST while we monitored the stability of the roadbed in that area, it would have cost about $1.35 million. If the roadbed hadn't stabilized yet, BST surface could be repaired at low cost. That is what we have done.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, that is really going to extremes now.

Now, the details on this contract from the government Web site are rather skimpy. In fact, it says that the contract value is an upper limit and does not reflect the amount actually paid out. Can the minister give us the actual amount of the contract and indicate whether the holdback on the contract has been paid out?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Speaker, I believe the cost was approximately $320,000 in total. I can get the precise figure to the penny for the member if he wishes. And, no, the holdback has not been paid out. We have retained a deficiency holdback equivalent to one kilometre of supply and place BST, and that will be released upon satisfactory completion of repairs to the BST, as I have already indicated.

Mr. McRobb:      That's interesting, Mr. Speaker, but some information on another part of this contract that I would like is the employment numbers it has produced. Can the minister indicate how many jobs were produced by this contract? And in terms of workers, how many were Yukoners and how many were from outside the territory?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      As the Member for Kluane is aware, it was a Yukon contractor who had the contract. I can undertake to find out exactly how many people were employed and how many were Yukoners if that's what the member wishes.

Question re:  School busing contract

Mr. Fentie:      I have a question today for the Premier, and I'm very glad the Premier was so passionate during her ministerial statement about being accountable to the Yukon public.

This is an issue that the Premier bears responsibility in, and it's to do with the inappropriate action of members of her government.

We have, first, the Member for Whitehorse West, the Speaker of this Assembly, involving himself in the tendering process. Secondly, we have the Minister of Education providing incorrect answers in this Assembly and to the public concerning this matter. The Premier cannot hide from this issue. She is responsible for the actions of the members of her government.

Let me ask the Premier this question: does the Premier agree with the Minister of Education that the Member for Whitehorse West was simply doing his job?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Yes, Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member opposite is yes. I fully support all of my colleagues.

Mr. Fentie:  So much for that accountability. First off, we have the Premier now condoning a minister of her government providing incorrect information in this Assembly. We have the Premier condoning political interference in the tendering process. This is a serious, serious matter, Mr. Speaker.

We have that political interference. We have a situation where the contract was discussed with the owner, he attended a union meeting where wage cuts were discussed, and he was giving a government caucus message on cost-cutting for school busing here in Whitehorse. But the opposition is willing to give the member the benefit of the doubt.

My question to the Premier: does the Premier agree that the Member for Whitehorse West simply exercised bad judgement?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. The Member for Whitehorse West was a bus driver for two and a half years.

Some of the people whom he met and talked with - it was specifically about efficiencies. I have said that time and again. In January and February of last year, the member was speaking purely about efficiencies.

He did meet and he did attend with his colleagues, and he was talking with his colleagues well before the tender was sent out.

The members opposite, yesterday, tried to justify actions of their previous government when a colleague of the member opposite met just days - just days - before a tender was sent out by the previous government and spoke on issues relevant to that tender.

I am sure that Yukoners would like to know the difference between that issue and our member simply doing his job.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, if the minister responsible for education doesn't know the difference between those two issues, he shouldn't be a minister. It's as simple as that. We've already dispelled that rumour. The former minister was invited to a meeting to discuss conditions of the tendering. That means if any changes were made to those conditions all would have a level playing field in bidding the contract. This is a different matter. Not every potential bidder received the same courtesy from this government. We're not wrong, Mr. Speaker. What's wrong here is the actions of this minister. I'm asking the Premier because this minister has no credibility on this issue. He has provided incorrect information in this Legislative Assembly. This should not be happening. It's inappropriate conduct for the Speaker of the Assembly to act in this manner. The Speaker is in the highest office of this Assembly, and we must have confidence in his abilities to carry out -

Speaker:      Order please. May we get to the question, please.

Mr. Fentie:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- his functions in a non-partisan manner. The defence by the minister doesn't cut it. Will the Premier do the right thing, have this matter independently reviewed and clear the air once and for all?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      And they go on and on and on. The fact of the matter is that the Member for Whitehorse West was doing his job outside, while this House wasn't sitting, so he was not the Speaker at the time. He was an MLA like the rest of us, going out and doing his job, talking to people, Mr. Speaker.

The opposition, I'm sure, does not gather - well, maybe they do gather all their information in their offices, because they don't get out there and they don't talk to people and they don't touch base with reality. Our members on this side do that, Mr. Speaker. We are all out there, talking to Yukoners all the time, having coffee. And, yes, we do talk to the public servants, who are members of a union, just as the Member for Whitehorse West did, as well. So we are doing our jobs, Mr. Speaker. And regardless of what the member opposite says, we on this side have full respect for the House, and we provide information as it becomes known to us in a full and accountable way, despite what the member opposite is alluding to.

Question re:  Mayo-Dawson transmission line, timber permit

Mr. Fairclough:      I have a question for the minister responsible for Yukon Energy Corporation and it concerns the clearing work and easement of the Mayo-Dawson transmission line. Is the minister familiar with the conditions of the timber permit issued to the Yukon Energy Corporation on June 19 of this year?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I am aware that yes, there is a right-of-way that had to be cleared and it was contracted out. So if that is the answer the member wants, that is the answer I am going to give him. Yes, I am aware of it.

Mr. Fairclough:      The second condition of the permit states that the Yukon Energy Corporation must ensure that all timber larger than 10 cm in diameter is limbed and decked for DIAND disposal on sites as designated by the forestry officer. Can the minister tell us if Yukon Energy Corporation contractors and subcontractors have been living up to the conditions of that timber permit?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      First of all, we don't look after timber harvest agreements as a government. After devolution, hopefully in a year or so, this may be something that works on timber. We are not responsible for timber harvesting anywhere. That is a federal responsibility, and if the member opposite wants more information that is specific - that is an operational question he is asking - I will definitely get the information for the member opposite.

Mr. Fairclough:      The minister is far off the mark on this one. We are not talking about a timber harvest agreement. We are talking about a project that this government has put forward and is responsible for, and we are talking about making sure that things are abided by.

For the minister's benefit, I can tell him that this has not been happening. In fact, there has been wholesale burning of trees along this line corridor. Both Nacho Nyak Dun and Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation are very concerned about what is taking place and, as a matter of fact, they call it a flagrant violation of the terms of the timber permit. They are also very concerned about the consultation process that has been used.

So, will the minister, now that he has been updated on this, look into this situation immediately and report back to the House tomorrow afternoon on what action he will prepare to take on this particular issue?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      That's a very detailed kind of aspect of the corporation. I'm not involved in the operation and maintenance of the corporation, Mr. Speaker. I'm involved in the overall philosophical direction of the corporation, not going out and cutting down each tree and identifying each tree, as the member wants me to do. But I'll definitely do that. I'll come forward with the information. Obviously, there is a concern there. It's a concern that we need to have some answers to, and we'll do that.

Speaker:      The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Notice of government private members' business

Mr. McLachlan: Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7), I would like to identify the item standing in the name of the government private members to be called on Wednesday, October 31, 2001. It is Motion No. 149, standing in the name of the Member for Whitehorse Centre.

Speaker:      We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:  I now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will take a 15-minute recess.

Recess

Chair:  I will now call the House to order.

Committee of the Whole will consider Bill No. 54, Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

Bill No. 54 - Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act - continued

On Clause 1 - stood over

Chair:  I believe we have an amendment and then we can clear this bill.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I would like to move an amendment to Bill No. 54:

THAT Bill No. 54, entitled the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, be amended in clause 1 on page 1 by adding the following definition immediately after the definition of "former act": "Interim support order" means a support order made by a court or an administrative body for a time-limited period.

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Buckway in an amendment:

THAT Bill No. 54, entitled the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, be amended in clause 1 on page 1 by adding the following definition immediately after the definition of "former act": "Interim support order" means a support order made by a court or an administrative body for a time-limited period.

A copy will be distributed to each of the members and then we will allow a couple minutes recess right now for people to understand the amendment. I'd ask for two minutes to allow the amendment to be read properly.

Chair:  Actually, Committee of the Whole will stop recess. What we'll do right now is that I'll have a Chair's statement regarding Bill No. 54.

Chair's statement

Chair:  Before calling clause 12, the Chair wishes to provide information on procedure. Clause 12 was stood over to allow time to reconsider the heading that appears above this clause. In this regard, the Chair has referred to House of Commons Procedure and Practices, which states on page 657, "Because the marginal notes attached to each of the clauses of a bill are not part of the text, they cannot be amended, nor can the headings of the various parts of a bill be amended." It is further stated in a footnote to that quotation that, "Editorial and technical amendments are not the responsibility of Parliament. That task falls instead to the legislative revisors who verify the accuracy of the marginal notes and headings before the statute is published." Accordingly, the Chair is not able to permit amendments to be proposed to the heading that appears on clause 12. The minister, however, may wish to provide the Committee with an indication of the likely direction to be taken in this regard.

If anybody wishes a copy of this, we will make photocopies available, but this is according to House of Commons Parliamentary Procedures and Practice, which all orders not covered in our Standing Orders defer to, so as far as the heading, we will allow Ms. Buckway to make a statement on that.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      We overlooked this and I apologize. We should have made the change before it got into final form. The heading for section 12 will read "Choice of Law re: child and claimant support".

Thank you.

Chair:  Now we will recess to allow members two minutes to read the amendment with any comments they may have. Committee of the Whole will recess for two minutes.

Recess

Chair:  I now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, this was one of the issues I raised in general debate quite extensively, and the minister failed to take heed or even recognize that there was a lack of a definition in this area. Now, all of a sudden, it's forthcoming. I suggested to the minister that there were certain parts that were drafted in haste and I was assured repeatedly by the minister that that certainly wasn't the case. I'm pleased to see that this amendment is now included. I don't know what took so long for the minister to come to the realization that it was actually missing.

Mrs. Peter: I would just like to thank the minister in her spirit of cooperation that this amendment has come forward.

Mahsi.

Clause 1 agreed to as amended

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 54, entitled Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, out of Committee with amendment.

Chair: It has been moved by Ms. Buckway that Bill No. 54, entitled Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, be reported out of Committee with amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 49 - An Act to Amend the Medical Profession Act - continued

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      An Act to Amend the Medical Profession Act is good legislation that has been developed in conjunction with the Yukon Medical Association, the Yukon Medical Council, the Whitehorse General Hospital and the departments of Justice and Health and Social Services. This legislation will help with recruitment of general practitioners, specialists and surgeons.

One of this government's seven priorities is to maintain quality health care in the Yukon. This legislation follows through on our commitment to Yukoners with an appropriate and practical solution. Maintaining quality health care can be accomplished by amending the act to remove unnecessary barriers to recruitment of qualified, foreign-trained doctors. These qualified, foreign-trained doctors are well trained and competent but have not yet met all the Canadian requirements for practising in the Yukon.

If supported in this legislation, the proposed amendments will help address the recruitment issues by doing four things. First, the proposed amendments will create a category of licence known as special licence. That will be issued under certain circumstances and with certain conditions to qualify foreign-trained physicians who have not yet met all of the Canadian requirements. The amendment will allow a special licence to be issued annually for up to five years to physicians who are not yet licensees of Medical Council of Canada.

The proposed amendments will permit the Yukon to recruit qualified, trained doctors when we have a demonstrated need for their services. The demonstrated need will be determined by the Minister of Health and Social Services. The Minister of Health and Social Services may consult with the Yukon Medical Association and the Yukon Medical Council before making the determination that a demonstrated need exists.

As mentioned yesterday, the importance of having the word "may" as opposed to the word "shall" is that the Minister of Health and Social Services is ultimately responsible for health care in the Yukon, and the minister needs to have the ability to make a decision in a situation of urgency. If the word "shall" is used, then there could be a delay in the minister's response to an urgent situation whereby the Yukon Medical Council or the Yukon Medical Association cannot be reached.

Second, the proposed amendments would update the licensing criteria for qualified foreign-trained physicians. The amendment would permit the Yukon Medical Council to require a period of additional assessment of training for foreign-trained physicians who are licentiates of the Medical Council of Canada. Such requirements are consistent with licensing provisions in the province. This means that the Yukon Medical Council would be able to assess the skills of qualified foreign-trained physicians to ensure they meet Canadian practice standards. The council can then require that a doctor take additional training where necessary.

Third, proposed amendments would clarify that in order for physicians to be enrolled in the Yukon Medical Register, they must be enrolled in the Canadian Medical Register.

This provision would update the Yukon licensing requirements to ensure that they are consistent with standards in other Canadian jurisdictions.

Mr. Chair, I would clarify that all physicians who meet full licensing requirements for the Yukon are enrolled on the Yukon Medical Register. Those who receive a special licence would be enrolled on a separate special register. The proposed amendments would repeal the provision regarding post-graduate training. Requirements for physicians enrolled in the Canadian Medical Register post-graduate training requirements have changed since the Medical Profession Act was established. The requirements of the Yukon act no longer reflect the present training requirements. This amendment will allow the Commissioner in Executive Council to prescribe post-graduate, clinical training requirements by regulation. This will enable us to keep the Yukon licensing requirements up to date with current education and clinical training standards across the country. These amendments are intended to update the Medical Profession Act by eliminating the requirements in our act that no longer are part of the training of Canadian doctors.

Mr. Chair, these amendments will enhance our capability to deliver the medical services that Yukoners are accustomed to and expect. Yukon will be in a better position to recruit qualified, foreign-trained physicians if we update our legislation to reflect provincial practices and medical training requirements. At the same time, we are taking advantage of the opportunity to update our requirements for enrolment on the Yukon Medical Register so that they are consistent with the standards in other Canadian jurisdictions. The amendments will provide assurances that we continue with highly qualified, competent physicians to meet the health needs of Yukoners. We need to look at appropriate, acceptable, responsible options, and we need to ensure that those options will deliver quality health care in the Yukon. We believe that the proposed An Act to Amend the Medical Profession Act helps to achieve those ends.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Keenan:      So, in short, the minister was going to be coming back from yesterday's conversation and dialogue on this situation. The minister was going to say yea or nay to the difference between "may" or "shall". Would the minister, in simple words, put it on the record now?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      We had reflected on this. We actually had a lot of discussion with the various stakeholders in looking at the bottom line here of being flexible.

I think the problem - I probably didn't realize this yesterday - that if we have "shall" in there and the inability of the minister of the day trying to get hold of the various groups to consult with, that could be a problem. That seems to be the concern about the "may" and the "shall". The "shall" makes it almost imperative that you have to consult.

I would say and suggest that any minister in the Yukon who doesn't consult obviously puts their own political life in jeopardy. I think it's a very obvious factor that it would happen anyway.

If we put the "shall" in the legislation, it could potentially handicap quick decisions that sometimes have to be made. Those might be rare, but I'm told that they do happen from time to time. So that's why our preference is to go along with the word "may". But again, as I underlined before, consultation seems to me, with the people who help draft this legislation and pull it together as we see it, to be very important in ensuring that all the partners were agreeable.

Mr. Keenan:      The minister said that he consulted. With whom did the minister consult? And I would like to qualify that, if I may - since yesterday, when this conversation started.

Mr. Keenan:      I would like for the minister to stand on his feet on the floor of this House and tell me, since this conversation took place yesterday afternoon, whom the minister has spoken to?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I have spoken to our legal people and our health people. I have not spoken to the Yukon Medical Council, if that is what the member is asking, nor the hospital. But, again, I guess some of those decisions are made by politicians for very obvious reasons. Hopefully it's not a word that we are going to get hung up on, because the bottom line is that the Health minister is ultimately responsible for all health in the Yukon, and it's very important to retain flexibility around that.

Like I said before, incidents of where those decisions may have to be made in a quick reaction have happened in the past, and I believe that we must move in the spirit of ensuring that that security for the Health minister is there. Again, consultation, as I said earlier, is a very important issue, but it would and could delay some quick actions and some quick decisions over things that the future might bring - and those we don't know.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, thank you very much. I would like to point out to the public at large and all those who are interested and are listening to the radio that the minister has not consulted. The minister has gone back to his department, had a little scrum. The minister has admitted that he hasn't talked to the YMA, he hasn't talked to the hospital, but he has talked to the departments of - I assume - Justice and Health. I don't consider that consultation.

Now, I can see that the minister already has his mind made up on this. I could actually see the minister having his mind made up on this yesterday when he was standing on the floor of this House and talking about this issue. I would like to point out that there are benchmarks in Canadian law. I believe that there is a case in Regina - and I'm reaching back about 15 years of my corporate memory in these situations and interests - where there is a benchmark where the minister, who is not ultimately the responsible department - as he stands on the floor of this House and says - but the Premier is. The minister is a messenger.

Back to the benchmark.

There is a benchmark in emergency situations that will protect the Premier and the department in a rush situation, an emergency situation, from doing the right thing.

I'd like to also point out that this is not a life and death situation that we're talking about. We're talking about recruitment, for gosh sakes - recruitment. It's administrative in nature. It's not a life and death situation.

I do like to point out that the minister has dug his heels in on this and that the minister is not going to change his mind. That's what I hear from this minister. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I think we have already started to realize where the problem is. It's the definition of "consultation". The member opposite, right there, disagrees with how or what consultation could be. Is a phone call going to be enough, or does it have to be a long, protracted meeting, or whatever? And that's the one issue that we know, when you have a number of individuals involved - each person has a different view of what that type of consultation should be.

I should like to remind the members opposite that, when this legislation was put forward, the Yukon Medical Council, the YMA, the Hospital Corporation, the Health department and the Justice department all agreed that the word should be "may". They all agreed. So, that's what we're going on, Mr. Chair. It was their recommendation that we leave it as it is, as "may". They had the option of going "shall" or "may", but they said, no, leave it as "may".

So, I guess I'm supporting all those professional people out there who believe that, in the final analysis, the minister needs to have that flexibility.

Mr. Keenan:      I'm not going to belabour this point too much, because I think the longer I keep this minister standing on his feet on the floor of this House, he is going to change situations. He has already deviated a little bit from what he said yesterday to what he means today. I just point that out, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to point out that, when you stand and you consult - the minister says it's a problem of consultation. Would the minister be willing to put a definition of "consultation" in this bill?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      For the record, I'm not too sure what the member means by "deviate" from what I said yesterday. When the member gets back up on his feet, he can maybe give me an example of what he means by me deviating from what I said yesterday.

That's for the record, because words like that, unless they're followed with a definition, mean nothing, and people listening to this may say, "What did he say yesterday? What did he say today? Where is the deviation?"

That's one of the problems - consultation. Right away we're getting into a protracted discussion about what consultation should be. You know, if we're going to do that, then that's going to take a long time to define what that could be. And, if that means it's going to hold up quick action and quick reaction because of needs that are there, one has to remember this is on filling positions that are possibly potentially vacant, where you may need a doctor, you may need a surgeon, because of whatever.

These are all related. If our surgeon were to go down with an illness, and so on, and we needed a quick decision about bringing a foreign surgeon in, consultation, you know, could hold up that process. And these are real examples. I mean, all the partners agreed that those decisions can't be made over a long consultative period.

So, to answer the question, I don't believe having a definition of "consultation" in the act would serve any purpose.

Mr. Keenan:      It's so nice to get this minister on the record. As for deviation, I'd like to point out that, yesterday evening, the minister said he was going to go away; he was going to think about it; he was going to consult with the stakeholders. The minister deviated from that position, through my questioning, on the floor of this House this afternoon by saying he did not do that. He went away, all right; he probably thought about it. He might have picked up the phone this morning and called the Deputy Minister of Health and Social Services, but the minister deviated from what he said he was going to do by not following through on one of what he says are his principles of consultation. The minister deviated from his own principle of consultation.

I point that out. I have no further questions for the minister.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, as I stated yesterday, this is extremely open-ended legislation - very, very enabling legislation that is before the House here today - and can be readily abused by the minister of the day. I'm not suggesting that this minister is going to abuse it, but it can be easily abused, and this legislation can be used for a purpose it wasn't envisioned to be used for nor intended to be used for. I have concerns with that.

That said, Mr. Chair, I do have reservations with the minister's ability to consult because the Liberals have an extremely poor track record of consulting today with the population. It doesn't matter if it's budget consultation or any of the areas. But, at the end of the day, we are not the majority in this House in opposition. We can only point out these areas that may become the source of abuse by this minister or subsequent ministers of Health and Social Services. I hope that's not the case. Be that as it may, I have no further general debate, Mr. Chair. I have no amendments or proposed amendments in line-by-line, and I would move that the legislation be deemed read and passed.

Unanimous consent

Chair:  It has been moved by Mr. Jenkins that Bill No. 49 in clause-by-clause be considered read and passed. We need unanimous consent of the House to do this. Do we have unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Chair:  There is unanimous consent.

Clauses 1 to 16 deemed to have been read and agreed to

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Chair, I move that you report An Act to Amend the Medical Profession Act out of Committee without amendment.

Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Roberts that Bill No. 49, entitled An Act to Amend the Medical Profession Act, be reported out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 6 - Fourth Appropriation Act, 2000-01

Chair:  We will now proceed to the budget bill. Bill No. 6, Fourth Appropriation Act, 2000-01. Is there any further general debate? Mr. Fairclough, you have approximately a minute and a half.

Mr. Fairclough:      I would like to move off of this bill. I have got a statement. I thank the minister for answering my questions in writing. From the notes that we have taken on this last funding and what has been spent, we have a certain amount of money that was voted in this Legislature, which gave authority to the government to spend. Approximately $23 million of that was lapsed and what we did not give authority to government to do was spend beyond that. This is what we have seen here, and I think this is a move that government should not be making.

I would just like to hand it over to the Member for Klondike for his statements and move on.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I would just like to table the letter that I provided to the leader of the official opposition with respect to questions he asked on lapses.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate on the Fourth Appropriation Act, 2000-01?

Seeing no further general debate, we shall proceed with clause-by-clause, or line-by-line - same thing. It's easier to use the notes in there.

Department of Education

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Department of Finance

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Department of Government Services

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Mr. Fentie:      I would like just a breakdown on that expenditure - the $1.7 million.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I can provide that to the member opposite, as the minister's seat is currently occupied.

That is as noted.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      It doesn't matter in Committee.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Okay. I'll let the minister go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Jim: The supplementary funding requirements were due to the transfer of the French language services program from the Executive Council Office to the Department of Government Services.

Department of Health and Social Services

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Mr. Fentie:      Just, again, for clarity, could I have a breakdown on that $1,231,000 expenditure?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I can provide the member opposite with more detailed information if he wishes; however, it's mainly due to the higher anticipated costs for group homes, the chronic disease program, the pharmacare program and the extended health program. As the member opposite is aware, pharmaceuticals are the largest cost driver in Canada's health care system and, while we budget a certain amount for drugs, we aren't always aware of - sometimes there are other drug approvals that come along and sometimes there is a greater than anticipated demand. That's the bulk of the costs, but if the member wishes a specific breakdown, I can provide it to him.

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures in the amount of $1,231,000 agreed to

Department of Renewable Resources

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

Office of the Ombudsman

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

On Schedule A

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 6, Fourth Appropriation Act, 2000-01, Supplementary Estimates No. 3, 2000-01, out of Committee without amendment.

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Duncan that Bill No. 6, Fourth Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be reported out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Bill No. 7 - Second Appropriation Act, 2001-02

Chair:  Is there any general debate?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, we are seeking additional sums of money for the current fiscal year by means of a supplementary. As a result of revotes - which is a normal and recurring event - new initiatives and new cost pressures, we require $54.4 million in new appropriations in 2001-02.

This increase is accompanied by new income in the amount of $28 million, which goes far to reduce the net impact on our annual deficit.

During my second reading remarks, I spoke at some length about the numerous matters with which this supplementary is concerned, so I'm going to be very brief at this point.

Excluding revotes, there's about $40 million in new spending contained in this bill; $11 million of that is being set aside in endowments to provide for the future or the Canada Winter Games infrastructure fund. These are worthy purposes, Mr. Chair, for our spending, and we're very proud, and we hope that they receive the support of all members of this House.

The remaining monies, about $29 million, are for a host of initiatives and purposes ranging from highway infrastructure and health care to the cost of our RCMP contract and workers' compensation. These, too, are worthy initiatives, worthy of support from the members opposite. They are essential purposes that improve the quality of life for our Yukon citizens, citizens to whom everyone in this Chamber is accountable and for whom we all work.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to discussing the lines in the supplementary with the members opposite. If they have any questions of a general nature, I would be pleased to address them now.

Thank you.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Chair, I have a number of questions. I certainly have a lot of questions in line-by-line in this particular supplementary.

First of all, this is a very large supplementary budget and, when first introduced into this House, the budget of 2001-02, this was already a very large budget, so the Premier's asking us on this side of the House to support the supplementary budget that's before us now. I could not understand where this Liberal government has been going, because it was only a matter of months ago that the Premier stood here in this House and said that the expenditures that it was asking of this House in the 2001-02 budget fulfills the commitment that this government is working toward.

And in only a matter of months do we find ourselves faced with a very large supplementary budget, so I ask the Premier this very simple question then. We're asked to support this large supplementary budget - is this now going to meet the commitments that the Premier said that the budget was going to meet at the beginning of the year - is this supplementary going to meet that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      When we tabled the 2001-02 operational and maintenance budget and capital budget in the spring of this year, on February 22, we had not, at that point in time, received any of the additional funding that we were subsequently able to negotiate and which was announced on April 5. On April 5^, I announced that we had resolved long-outstanding issues with Finance minister Paul Martin and we are going to receive additional funding as a result of that. This supplementary outlines how that additional money is to be spent and how it is to be set aside for things like the Canada Winter Games fund. That is what it does.

As to this government living up to the commitments outlined in the 2001-02 budget tabled in the spring, we are doing that. What this supplementary does is, it also lives up to things like additional costs in the RCMP contract, additional workers' compensation costs, sets money aside for the future as I have already noted, and it also deals with such items as the enhanced highway construction that took place over the summer.

Mr. Fairclough:      That doesn't really answer the question. Can this House expect another supplementary to follow this one for this year, for 2001-02, perhaps in the spring?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, there might be one or two recoverable projects that may come in at a different level or we may receive enhanced funding for them, so an additional supplementary would have to deal with them at that point in time.

As far as predicting the future, I don't anticipate much difference from what we have already outlined to the Legislature in terms of R01-02 spending. There may be some slight variations, as I said, on recoverable projects. Those, of course, would be outlined in a final supplementary like the one that we just cleared through Committee.

Mr. Fairclough:      That's understandable. Is this Liberal government looking toward perhaps bringing additional spending out of this budget before the Legislature?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, perhaps the member opposite could be a little clearer. Additional spending before the Legislature is this supplementary. Is the member asking if we're going to bring some other new project before the Legislature? There is the capital planning, as already outlined in the 2002-03 capital plan that is also outlined in the main estimates, so I'm at a loss as to what question the member opposite is driving at.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Chair, it's pretty clear. We just dealt with a supplementary budget that was passed in this House that had additional government spending, and that's what I'm getting at. This Liberal government doesn't seem to know where to draw the line when it comes to spending. The anticipated additional dollars coming down from Ottawa are reflected in this supplementary budget. What are we going to see in the spring before the end of this fiscal year? I expect another supplementary budget to come forward on the 2002-03 capital budget. I expect that to happen, but with regard to this, are we going to be faced with another supplementary budget before finishing off this budget?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      We just concluded debate on budget Supplementary Estimates No. 3 for 2000-01. This is the final accounting for situations like with Renewable Resources, where $50,000 went over the vote to date and it was due to a 100-percent recoverable project. So, as I said to the member opposite, it may very well be that, in the spring next year, there is a supplementary that would be No. 2 of the budget 2001-02 that accounts for situations where there were greater recoveries in a project or perhaps other projects were underspent, just as we just concluded debating. As for anything more significant than that, I don't anticipate anything.

Mr. Fairclough:      Why would the Liberals not follow the trend that is already established in this House?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Follow what trend? The member doesn't know what he is asking me.

Mr. Fairclough:      I do know what I am asking. We have just dealt with a supplementary budget where this government has lapsed funding that was voted on in this House. They have also spent money that was not voted on in that budget. So, is the Finance minister saying that this government is going to clean up its act and not do that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      It is standard for governments to table a budget. And it is entirely in keeping, when governments are able to successfully conclude a discussion like we had with Minister Martin and able to subsequently obtain funding, to come back to this House as soon as the House reconvenes and provide a supplementary, which is what we did. Now, it is entirely likely that another supplementary for the year 2001-02 will be tabled in this House. That is entirely possible and probable and is consistent with past practice.

Now, if the member is asking if I anticipate - I don't know what the member is thinking we might anticipate or not anticipate. We continue to manage the government finances as has been done in the past. There's nothing untoward. There's nothing out of the ordinary except for this government's successful ability to work with other governments.

Mr. Fairclough:      Yes, we've seen that demonstrated with the First Nation Education Commission, Mr. Chair, and others.

I'd like to ask the Premier, as has been past practice, how is this supplementary budget put together?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      With Management Board and with caucus.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, that's exactly what we thought on this side of the House, that this government did not go out and consult with people on what their priorities are. The opportunity was there, and this was for the third, fourth, fifth time it was going to take place in this House. It's not right. Now, the Premier anticipated an increase from Ottawa. She didn't go out and consult on the original budget because it was already written up. We all know that, but people did voice themselves in that month that the Premier was out. Is this a reflection of that, or did Management Board just make the decisions on their own?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the member opposite is incredibly wrong in his assertions to this Legislature. The fact is that this government, as a caucus, travelled throughout the territory in January consulting on the budget. What we heard overwhelmingly, first and foremost, was an appreciation for the fact that we were consulting on a budget close to the time frame when the budget would actually be delivered. What we heard were specific community priorities, and they were reflected in the budget. The fact that the member opposite cannot and will not admit to that or see that is the member opposite's problem; it's not the problem of Yukoners. The problem for Yukoners is that the member opposite isn't hearing what they've said to us. What they've said to us is, "Restore our infrastructure. Restore that long-overdue, neglected highways budget. Put money back in it. Do things like deal with basic needs of Yukoners: water and sewer services. Do things like build projects on time and on budget and meet the needs of Yukoners." That's what the 2001-02 budget did.

The member opposite is equally wrong when he says that we anticipated additional funding from Ottawa. We worked long and hard with Minister Martin on a very outstanding case. There were four scenarios that we were working on - four specific problems. We achieved what no previous government had been able to achieve - a resolution of that issue. We got that resolution on April 5, and what we did was tabled it for members opposite, indicated that the supplementary would come forward this fall. The fact that the member opposite can't recognize that it's in this document is his problem.

The other point that I'd like to make to the member opposite is that, to suggest that money set aside for the Canada Winter Games is not a direct request of Yukoners - the member is wrong. Go and ask the many Yukoners who lobbied us to do that. We were able to do that because we resolved the financial situation. The endowment funds that are talked about in this budget - those are all Yukoners, Yukoners who want us to be sure to have money set aside for the future needs. That's what we're dealing with.

And we've dealt with the Yukoners who have expressed that we should deal with - again I say to the member opposite - such things as crime prevention and policing. There is additional funding in this supplementary budget for that. And I would encourage the member opposite to listen and recognize that the voices of Yukoners are reflected, not only in the 2001-02 budget, but in this supplementary that we are debating. The voices of Yukoners can be heard loudly and clearly in the numbers in this document. I would encourage the member opposite to consider that.

Mr. Fairclough:      Certainly the federal government admits to making a mistake about how they calculate what the Yukon should be getting. As a result, we get additional dollars for that.

We know who the pull is when developing this budget, but I can't understand how off the mark this Liberal government is in developing a budget. There is an increase of more than 50 percent in Community and Transportation Services, and where are the others? The minister said that Yukon's voice is heard in this supplementary budget. Then, how does she explain the fact that there are no expenditures in this budget for, for example, the Mayo anniversary building? How does she explain that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, what I would suggest to the member opposite is that what is contained on these pages is the requests from Yukoners, the hard work of our caucus in listening to what people had to say. The work of Yukoners is reflected. There are such items as a revote for the Carcross-Tagish First Nation Heritage Centre. That's contained in this supplementary. Artifact inventory and cataloguing for the completion of virtual museums is included. There is funding for the development of a virtual exhibit, titled "Fort Selkirk", for public exhibition. There is, again, an endowment fund for Canada Winter Games, to set money aside so that, if we are successful in our bid, we will have the ability to contribute to that very worthwhile initiative and project that Yukoners are excited about - the opportunity. There is the Yukon Foundation endowment fund. Is the member opposite criticizing those individuals? Is the member opposite suggesting that finally - finally - rebuilding the corners on the Alaska Highway, which were surveyed in 1984, is not a worthwhile expenditure?

Well, Mr. Chair, the fact is that we were elected to government and part of being in government is determining, with Yukoners, how best to manage the territory's finances. This supplementary budget outlines those expenditures for 2001-02. It's a good supplementary budget that recognizes the needs and desires of Yukoners, and I commend it not only to the member opposite but to the Legislature.

Mr. Fairclough:      But, Mr. Chair, the Premier didn't answer the question. I asked her one simply relating to Mayo and their community project. Why wasn't that - did the Premier not go and consult with that community at all - the municipality - in reflection of the large additional dollars that have come down from Ottawa, to have that project reflected - perhaps even planning dollars for it? It doesn't have to be the whole capital funding for the entire project, but just, for example, the planning dollars. Why wasn't that in there? Where was Mayo in this whole consultation process?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      May I remind the member opposite that we are building a new school in Mayo, that we work closely with the First Nation as well as the town council, and that the Minister of Community and Transportation Services and officials are working with that community and that this is a supplementary for 2001-02, the fiscal year that is about to end in March, and that to the best of my knowledge we have not yet received a proposal from Mayo.

Mr. Fairclough:      Wow, that is incredible that from the words of the minister - we are in the current budget and we have time to do things like planning over the winter for a project like this. Now, if the Premier and the Liberals had simply gone to the communities and talked to the municipality they would have clearly voiced their concerns about this. There was not a telephone call or anything - a fax to the municipality - to ask them about a development of this budget or, in that matter, the capital budget. I have talked to the municipality. Why wasn't that respect given to the Village of Mayo?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      No previous government has consulted on supplementary budget funding. Previous governments have conducted their budget consultations in different manners. They were elected to government, that is their right to do that, just as we were. No previous government has gone around and consulted on a supplementary.

Mr. Fairclough:      Did the minister just say that their Liberal government did not consult on the spending authority here?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      No, what I just said to the member opposite is this government has listened to what Yukoners have said and we have constructed our supplementary budget. What I've said is that no previous government has done a formal budget consultation around a supplementary. So, the member is simply wrong in his suggestion that this government has not listened to Yukoners. We have listened to Yukoners. We have listened to them in our formal budget consultation and in the 200 travel days that this government spent, outside of Whitehorse, within the Yukon, listening to what Yukoners had to say.

Mr. Fairclough:      There is a big difference between previous governments and the amount of money that is put forward in the supplementary budget.

There is about a 58-percent increase to Community and Transportation Services - does that not warrant a telephone call to the community? Where did this come from?

The members opposite say that it was reflective of what people said. Maybe she could be a little more clear on this so that I can take this information back to the people of Mayo who have been asking for this for a number of years.

This could have been easily reflected in this budget.

So, is the Premier even prepared to make some changes to reflect the needs of the Village of Mayo?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Might I remind the member opposite that he, as part of the former government, and former governments ignored the community of Mayo and their need for a new school for how many years? Thirty-plus? A Mayo recreation centre is not contained in this supplementary budget. The member opposite is not recognizing the fact that both the minister and officials within Community and Transportation Services are working with the community on what their desires are, just as we are working with all Yukon communities on things such as our commitment to tabling in this session of the Legislature a review of water and sewer needs and costs throughout the territory - basic needs as well as other work that is ongoing in that department.

If the member opposite wants to debate the specific projects contained within Community and Transportation Services and the additional $26 million in capital expenditures as well as the additional $7.9 million in recoveries, then I would invite the member opposite to do that when we get into line-by-line on Community and Transportation Services.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, Mr. Chair, here's a challenge to the Premier. I challenge her to sit down with me and the Village of Mayo and the First Nation and make that statement that she just made in this House, and you will see that, from the perspective of the village and the First Nation, that was not true.

Unparliamentary language

Chair:  Order please. I'd remind members that inferences of truth or untruth are not allowed under the rules of the House. I'd ask Mr. Fairclough to withdraw that statement.

Withdrawal of remark

Mr. Fairclough:      I'll withdraw that. It was incorrect, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier knows that. If she takes up that challenge, we'll sit in Mayo and go over this - with the number of meetings that took place and so on.

So the minister is wrong.

So when will this minister pick up the phone and call the municipalities? Are the municipalities and First Nations going to be consulted, say, for example, on the O&M budget coming forward in the spring?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the only argument the member opposite has presented against our budgets is that we haven't consulted. And the fact is that we have, and the fact is that we listen to what Yukoners tell us. And what the member was taking umbrage at was my assertion on the floor of this House, which I stand by, that the previous governments did not build the Mayo school. We did. We built the school. And the fundamental point is that every single Yukon student should have a healthy, safe environment in which to learn. And the young students in Grey Mountain Primary will have that under this government, and so will the students in Mayo and the students who attend Eliza Van Bibber and Golden Horn and Takhini and Vanier, and Watson Lake, most especially, because that project has been delayed over and over and over and over again. All of those students and all students wherever they live need a clean, safe, healthy environment in which to learn. And that's where some of the dollars in not only our capital budget but elsewhere go, Mr. Chair. And the decisions are made based on the best, most sound advice from Yukoners working with our caucus, being fiscally responsible.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, Mr. Chair, the minister is all over on this one. Previous governments did projects. They can say they have done the projects. This government delays projects. We have seen that with the Carmacks school, and it's too bad the member opposite is not addressing the health situation that's there, present in the school. What it is, is a delay of a project. She can pipe up and blow the Liberal horn all she likes on this matter, but the fact is that this supplementary budget is big. You don't see that every day and you don't see it every year in previous governments. When there are dollars like this, I think that communities could have a courtesy call from the Premier and talk about their priorities, so why didn't that take place? Did the Liberals, in their caucus meetings, make an informed decision not to do this and just allow Management Board to make these decisions?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, as I have already stated several times in the House, we made and presented to the Legislature, to the floor of this House, a supplementary budget that is based upon advice from Yukoners and the advice and work of our caucus members in our role as a Cabinet and Management Board. The decisions we have reached are for debate before the Legislature.

I will agree with the member opposite that, yes, it is a large supplementary. It is the first time that the long-outstanding issues of the formula have been resolved and, as a result, there is new income in the amount of $28 million, which goes far to reduce the net impact on our annual deficit of the additional supplementary.

I would invite the member to thoroughly consider, in line-by-line, the supplementary. The fact is that it was created with the help of Yukoners.

Mr. Fairclough:      What the Premier said is that the change in formula took place and that Yukon is benefiting from that. But in reality, if you really look at it, Yukoners have been cheated for years by the federal Liberals. That's what took place, especially in the time of need when we were in a recession.

Now we have all kinds of money and this government is crying poverty and not addressing the true issues of the communities. The big one is jobs. So can the Premier tell us how many winter works are going to be created out of this supplementary?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The work that was created out of this supplementary is very evident if one were to spend time outside of their own specific community or travelling throughout the Yukon. You can see Yukoners at work on the Mayo-Dawson transmission line. In Mayo we heard over and over again that the majority of the community had employment and that the community was very happy with the way things had proceeded, not only on the school construction but on the Mayo-Dawson transmission line. We had public comments from the Mayor of Dawson this summer about the amount of work going on in that community. There were a great number of individuals working on the north highway, and I can provide the precise employment figures to the members opposite if they wish that type of detail.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, Mr. Chair, the Premier is wrong. That is not what the community had said. As a matter of fact, they did not say that the school project went well. There was a community cry, and it was heard by the public well across the Yukon. It was to the point of demanding that this government go to the community and face the community about the changes that were pushed upon them without any consultation. So that's reality. The Premier failed to show and tell Yukoners that.

Winter works - what does the Premier expect for the number of jobs created this winter out of this budget?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      When the budget is tabled in the spring there is a job creation that is outlined with that spring budget. It is not normally done with the supplementary budget.

Mr. Fairclough:      Maybe this Liberal government forgot the opportunity to blow their horn again about job creation. Certainly you know the number of jobs that were created out of this budget. How much of this supplementary budget is put away for the future, monies that are not going to be used?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I must take issue with the member opposite's words that the money is not going to be used. Money is going to be used to the benefit of Yukoners. I would advise the member opposite that in this supplementary there is the $8 million set aside for the Canada Winter Games and $3 million in endowments and, as I noted in my second reading speech and in my speaking notes, that total is $11 million.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITOR

Mr. Fentie:      With all indulgence of the House, I would like to turn our attention to the gallery and introduce a member of the Liard First Nation, Mary Pie, and welcome her here.

Mr. Fairclough:      Was this supplementary budget put together with the idea of creating work this winter?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      This supplementary budget was put together with the idea that the needs of Yukoners would be met, that we would be able to maximize our opportunities and funding spent on infrastructure and that we would be able to complete some projects ahead of what we had previously anticipated - that is the Champagne corner specifically.

There are also opportunities we were able to seize upon, in terms of working with some recoverable projects and some of the other upgrades that are contained in this particular budget. So, it was put together with the idea that we would meet the current needs of Yukoners, as well as working toward the future.

Mr. Fairclough:      The Premier did not answer the question. I'll ask her this, then: how much of this supplementary budget that the Liberals are asking us to pass in this House - how much of that money is already spent?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I'll provide the member opposite with a return on that.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Chair, I believe this is a very important question. We have a huge expenditure in Community and Transportation Services. We would like to know if the money is already spent or whether we can expect huge lapses at the end of the year. How soon can we get that information here? People are listening out there. I'm sure there's information that can come down fairly quickly.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, we will provide the member opposite with a written response tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Fairclough:      Why were there not any funds put into the community development fund? Why wasn't there a top-up there? We have seen some increases from projects long, long back, and that's reflected in this budget, so why was there no direction there to address the priorities of communities?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, Project Yukon was not allocated additional funding in this supplementary. If you look on page 4-3 - and I have no wish to get into line-by-line - there is additional funding under the community development fund, which pays for those old projects that the member is referring to.

The member opposite is questioning our spending priorities and questioning what was allocated where. There's plenty of time in line-by-line for that debate. I stand by the comment that this supplementary meets the basic needs of Yukoners and looks to the future, to the long term - rebuilding infrastructure, working on highways, doing projects that have sat on the shelf for years and years and years and years because previous governments could never find the money to deal with those safety issues and those key concerns in those long, long overdue and neglected highways.

Mr. Chair, we worked hard, we found the additional money, and we have created a supplementary budget that addresses a number of needs, not simply that one.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, this might be a surprise for the Premier, but there are going to be projects that have been identified in this term and years from now that this Liberal government will never get to. So that kind of argument doesn't wash. It's just the priority of this Liberal government.

She also says that this supplementary budget reflects the needs and desires of the communities. Did the Premier and her Liberal government not hear the community people speak about increases to Project Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the individuals who argue the loudest - I don't suppose they're the only ones because they'll go out and find some others. The fact is that project Yukon was well-funded in the 2001-02 budget. It's there. It has been used by the community. The member opposite is suggesting that we should have allocated more supplementary funding to it in this supplementary budget. We chose not to do that.

We chose, instead, to fund other projects and allocate funding to other priorities expressed by Yukoners. When the member rose to his feet, he said this budget reflects the spending priorities of this government, and this government reflects the desires of Yukoners. The member opposite is right on that.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Chair, there is over $11 million in O&M that's a priority of this government - an increase of $11 million in O&M, and still, this government couldn't find a few thousand dollars to throw into the Project Yukon to address the small projects in the communities. I could not understand why that has been done. I don't know where this government is going. So far, this budget doesn't reflect anywhere that this Liberal government is going. What do they stand for?

I don't think that the Premier could even answer that question at all.

In the 2001-02 budget, and the supplementary, there's no fireweed fund. Does the Premier not support that type of fund?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I would just remind the member opposite that, of the $11 million O&M additional funding, a portion of that - $3.3 million - includes the settlement with Yukon teachers. There's also additional funding required for the RCMP contract and workers' compensation premiums. Is the member voting against those?

Perhaps, when he rises to his feet, he might want to comment on that.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, in response to the member's question about the fireweed fund, it's a private investor fund. It's not a government-sponsored fund.

Mr. Fairclough:      That wasn't the question. I asked if the Premier supported this fund.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I was leader of the official opposition at the time the Fireweed Act was introduced and yes, I expressed my support.

Mr. Fairclough:      It certainly isn't reflected in what the government is doing to have venture capital out there for new businesses to access.

The supplementary budget is obviously a big amount of dollars, and the Premier cannot say exactly what it is for. I would have thought that it would have addressed the needs of some of the projects that the communities have identified - the communities and Whitehorse, NGOs - and continue on with some of the projects that are out there. We have over $54 million, and we will quickly see our unemployment rate in the communities going up. When we start seeing it around the 50-percent mark, that is high and that is not unusual. So why would there not be any monies going toward the communities to reflect those small jobs that could carry them throughout the winter? Is the Premier expecting that some projects may go ahead, and some big ones like Cantung could take care of the shortfall in jobs this winter?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      There have been a number of projects and tasks in the private sector that have attracted Yukon employees and have put people to work. This past summer - there are others coming on that are putting individuals to work. And the fact is that the unemployment rate is of concern. I could advise the member opposite that it is a concern throughout the country, and it is anticipated in the country that it will go up in October as a result of the economic slowdown in southern Canada.

Here in the Yukon, the fact is that perhaps the member opposite missed the media release from North American Tungsten that indicated they anticipated shipping concentrate by January. I believe the date was January or around Christmas. The fact is that it's going to take people to mine that concentrate and get it ready for market. It has taken people to get the mill ready for operation. It has taken people to rebuild the road. Those people have all got jobs; they are working. People are building the Mayo-Dawson transmission line. People are building the Mayo school. People are building the Christ the King Elementary addition and built the Holy Family addition this summer; people are finishing the extended care facility. Those are all people who are working, and several of those projects are outside of the community of Whitehorse.

There are over 50 Yukoners working at the North American Tungsten Cantung property right now. That is the result of initiatives by this government of expenditures like money on the Nahanni Range Road, like the work of the Minister of Economic Development, like the mining incentive program. These are all budget and supplementary budget initiatives. This government is working with the finances available to put people to work, and we are working to rebuild the infrastucture and we are working to meet the basic needs of Yukoners.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, when in opposition, the Liberals couldn't understand why the government was putting money into road improvement to Cantung. What changed between being in opposition and government?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the difference is that there is a mining company that is reopening the mine. If the member opposite is suggesting that I voted against the budget in opposition, yes, I did. If the member is suggesting that I am opposed to spending money on infrastructure and roads, I would invite the member opposite to look at the budget and see that that's not the case.

Mr. Fairclough:      So, when did the Premier know that the actions of this government were a direct result of the Cantung mine opening?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, having conferred with my colleagues on this particular initiative, I would say to the member opposite that we first learned of the reopening of this particular mine in the spring, post the preparation of the budget that was tabled. We have worked hard within the departments, between Economic Development and Community and Transportation Services, to ensure that we facilitated the mine reopening where we could.

Mr. Fairclough:      So, the words of the Premier were incorrect when she thanked the Minister of Economic Development for all his hard work in making sure this mine opened up. He wasn't even a minister at that time. It was in the spring when they first learned that this was taking place.

I ask the Premier - she did say that she anticipates the unemployment rate to rise by the end of October or during the winter months. Is there a percentage that is anticipated by this government?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I was not incorrect in my comments. I was incorrect in not inserting the word, the "now" Minister of Economic Development. As a hard-working member of our caucus, the Member for Riverside had been representing me at a number of economic conferences, including the mining conference, at which we first learned of the information. So my answer to the member opposite was correct.

Secondly, with regard to unemployment figures, I advised the member opposite what we were told on Sunday by the Governor of the Bank of Canada and by Finance officials is that they anticipate - and also it was noted recently in several financial columns - that the unemployment rate will rise slightly in southern Canada in October when October figures are out, which would be later this week. What I anticipate the Yukon figures to be - I don't anticipate or I'm not going to guesstimate.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Chair, the Minister of Economic Development said that diversification was a priority of government. Can the Premier tell us what funds in the supplementary are addressing that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Perhaps the member opposite would like to address that question to the Minister of Economic Development in the line-by-line on Economic Development.

Mr. Fairclough:      No, I believe that this is a priority of this Liberal government. Every minister should know that and have it reflected in their departments. And she is the Finance minister and should be able to answer that question.

So, where is it reflected in this supplementary?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the priorities of this government are: devolution - achieved that; settling land claims - working hard on that, one is going for ratification vote. The substance abuse and addictions are well-addressed by the Minister of Health and are in this particular budget. Rebuilding Yukon's economy is reflected throughout the budget in our work on infrastructure in communities as well as initiatives such as developing our oil and gas, working with the IT sector, working with a myriad of Yukon individuals and Yukon communities.

Some of the other key priorities of this government include restoring the confidence of government. The members opposite have not taken advantage, as yet, when I was last advised, of the briefings on renewal. They were not available this summer, and there's much to be discussed in that area. Infrastructure is another one of our key priorities, as well as maintaining quality health care, which I've already mentioned - developing infrastructure, restoring confidence in government, rebuilding the Yukon economy, addressing alcohol and drug addictions.

This budget, the supplementary and the capital budget, addresses all of them, and I'm certain that the ministers would like the opportunity to indicate, in each of the departments, how the budgets reflect those seven priorities.

Mr. Fairclough:      The Finance minister didn't answer the question about diversification. It has not been mentioned as a priority of this Liberal government. Is it not a priority? Is it not an issue any more? No direction to diversify the economy?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, I just addressed that - rebuilding Yukon's economy is a key priority of this government. Rebuilding Yukon's economy includes diversification, among a number of other initiatives.

Mr. Fairclough:      How is that reflected in this 2001-02 budget, along with the supplementary? Diversification - I'm specifically asking about diversification. Maybe some notes could be passed down to the Premier.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I would suggest to the member opposite that rebuilding Yukon's economy includes examining new opportunities and diversification. It also includes building upon our strengths.

We have some of the finest road builders and contractors anywhere. They have been, and their skills have been sorely under-utilized by previous governments' budgeting.

This government, in infrastructure, and elsewhere, has put people to work - other opportunities, new opportunities, like Connect Yukon. As member opposite is aware, we are fulfilling an expensive obligation and it is up to us to ensure that we maximize the opportunities that presents. The Minister of Economic Development is working with the IT sector. There is also the tourism spending. There is also work on other tourism initiatives and Yukon-wide initiatives including air access. This government has worked hard over the summer, and some of our efforts are reflected in the supplementary budget.

Mr. Fairclough:      Why does this Liberal government not support trade and export?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      We do.

Mr. Fairclough:      Then why is it not reflected in the budget and the supplementary?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      It is reflected in our operation and maintenance and capital budget that was tabled in the spring and it is reflected in work that we do. It is reflected in a whole variety of areas including the much-maligned trade missions the member is so fond of suggesting that I not participate in.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, maybe the Minister of Finance can point those line items out in the budget and the supplementary and clarify this question about trade and export. I know she likes to travel and will soon be off to Russia on a trade mission, I am sure. So, can she point out in the budget and in the supplementary the line items that deal with trade and export?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The budget we are debating right now is the supplementary. The member opposite is aware that the trade and export initiatives are outlined in the Department of Economic Development. For further examination of exactly what the expenditures have been, I would suggest that the member ask in the line-by-line debate in Economic Development. I would draw the member's attention to 4-3, $123,000 additional funding in trade and investment.

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Chair, this is not a priority of government. It hasn't been reflected in the budget speech, and it's not moving anywhere. There's no support for businesses out there that want to do anything new. So why would this Liberal government not go toward that? Why is this Liberal government not supporting the small businesses that are trying to do more beyond Yukon borders?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, we are. The member opposite's real difficulty is that the member opposite cannot accept the fact that we are in government and that we are doing government as we will do it, as we were elected to do. That's the real difficulty the member opposite is having.

The fact is that trade and investment is reflected in the line item in Economic Development.

Mr. Fairclough:      Where are the increases, if that was a priority of rebuilding the economy, in this supplementary budget? The Premier couldn't point that out because it isn't a priority. Along with a number of other funds that are out there, it is suddenly disappearing off the Liberals' radar and planning budgeting sessions. Are we going to see, over the next couple of years - because it's not reflected or spelt out clearly - any diversification efforts and direction are coming out of the Liberal government?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, the Liberal priorities of achieving devolution, settling outstanding land claims, maintaining quality health care, developing infrastructure, restoring confidence in government, rebuilding the Yukon economy and, most importantly, addressing alcohol and drug addictions are reflected not only in last year's budget that was tabled, but they are also reflected in this supplementary as well as in the capital plan.

Mr. Fairclough:      The Premier is going to repeat those lines over and over again. I'm trying to help her out. I would like clarity, because people out there are asking me this question. So, if they can't get answers out of government, it's only the duty of the opposition to ask those questions in regard to diversification.

There is no effort put forward by this Liberal government to work toward diversifying the economy. It was the pipeline, and that was it - all the eggs in the pipeline basket. And there were blinders on when the Liberals saw the pipeline and didn't address other issues that are out there. Now, I see this Liberal government maybe wanting to change, because the pipeline may not go through. So when are we going to see some clear direction from this Liberal government on diversifying the economy?

INTRODUCTION OF VISITOR

Mrs. Peter: I ask for your indulgence to please help me welcome my nephew, Greg Charlie, who is sitting in the gallery.

Applause

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The Liberal Government of the Yukon's priorities in terms of, and including, rebuilding the Yukon economy, are reflected in the supplementary budget that is up for debate. If the member opposite wishes to discuss specific initiatives within the Department of Economic Development and within other specific departments, I would invite him to do so.

Mr. Fairclough:      I have questions with regard to the Finance minister, as the Minister of Economic Development is not part of Management Board that put this budget together.

Listen carefully - is rebuilding the economy reducing the capital budget and O&M? Is that how we do things through that department, or is this a long-term plan of just phasing out Economic Development altogether?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      With all due respect to the member opposite, I must correct him. The supplementary budget proceeds through Management Board, and our Management Board appointees are not solely three members of Cabinet. All members of Cabinet have been appointed to Management Board.

For the member opposite, it's not only three members, as the member suggested - listen carefully. All members of Cabinet have been appointed to Management Board.

Management Board approves the supplementary prior to it being tabled. Our caucus, listening and working with Yukoners, developed the supplementary budget. Our caucus includes the Member for Riverside, as well as the Member for Whitehorse Centre, and Faro and Whitehorse West, and Porter Creek North and South, and Riverdale North and South, as well as Laberge, as well as Mount Lorne. All those individuals, Yukoners, have offered their advice, as well as countless other Yukoners, on the supplementary and on the finances of the territory.

The fact is that the member is suggesting - if the member wishes to debate the line-by-line in Economic Development, I invite him to do so with the minister.

Mr. Fentie:      I would just briefly like to follow up with the minister in regard to some of the comments here this afternoon and how the minister is explaining this budget, in terms of rebuilding the Yukon economy, the fact that it's community priorities, and all these things.

The opposition side is making best efforts to progress and conduct the public's business here, even with the draconian measure of closure held as a gun to our heads. But some of the comments the minister has made certainly bear rebuttal.

First off, the fact that these budgets mirror and reflect the Liberals' commitment to the Yukon public that this is an attempt to rebuild the economy - one only has to point out to the minister that, so far, what has happened, the trends in this territory are going exactly the opposite way.

And that is something that the minister must get a handle on. These budgeting priorities are not rebuilding the Yukon economy. In fact, we have seen - under this Liberal watch - an exodus of the workforce in this territory: skilled labourers, up to 400 or 500 people gone. Unemployment is certainly not at a level based on the commitments we heard from the minister, and I don't think this bears a whole lot of other discussion. The facts speak for themselves. The trends are obvious. These budgeting priorities here are not rebuilding the economy, simple as that.

Furthermore, when it comes to community priorities, Mr. Chair, the members opposite must talk to more people than the few Liberal supporters that are left. There are many people out there in this territory who have priorities. There are communities out there in this territory that have been ignored, budget after budget. Where, for example, is the skating rink for Liard First Nation people? That is a priority. Where, for example, are the street lights while those people walk down a dark highway in between their residences? Where, for example, is the feasibility study money, a mere $150,000, for a road to resources, which, by the way, would have a great impact on rebuilding the economy, because we as Yukoners could access resources in a ready manner that would certainly help turn our economy around?

Now, Mr. Chair, we are looking at a supplementary that takes a $535-million budget and increases it by some $54 million. Now, that is close to $600 million being spent by this Liberal government, and yet far too many community priorities are not reflected here. Far too often we see example after example where the money is heading into a few areas that certainly must bear some semblance of influence from Liberal supporters.

What we're trying to ascertain with the minister is why there was not more effort put into balancing the expenditures with this supplementary to do such things as job creation for the winter. The obvious vehicles are the community development fund, fire smart, and areas like that that could help put people to work here this winter. I ask the minister: why was there not more of a focus on balancing the expenditures here in the communities?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The member opposite and I disagree fundamentally.

He mentioned three points: the skating rink in Upper Liard, a street-light issue - and the minister responsible for Community and Transportation Services has taken careful note of those two items and will respond to the member opposite on those two specific issues with detailed information. And the third issue that the member opposite mentioned was a roads-to-resources feasibility study. And, as the member opposite is aware, following my meeting with the community, there was an agreement with the community that, prior to that proceeding, there would be support received from the Liard First Nation and that has not occurred. That is why that budget expenditure is not made.

Mr. Fentie:      Now, we have the Premier, the Minister of Finance, providing incorrect information on the floor of this Legislature. And yes, we don't agree fundamentally. However, we are here to hold the government accountable on their expenditure in this supplementary and indeed the mains. The expenditures are not addressing the needs of Yukoners in general. They may be addressing the needs of a few small favoured people but they are not addressing the needs of Yukoners. If the minister were to take some time to sit down and talk to Liard First Nation, she may find that her comment is the incorrect comment. However, that has never taken place.

Now, let's get on with the skating rink. I would appreciate the minister responsible providing some information, given the fact that we have not yet received a response to correspondence. We have already received the response on the street lights. It was a big "no", and here we have $54 million in a supplementary and we can't put up two street lights on the Alaska Highway? Let's get serious.

I'm asking the minister why wasn't there a better attempt, a more focused attempt, to balance expenditures? I would like the minister to explain how this represents a balanced approach to spending Yukon taxpayers' money.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Chair, again the member opposite and I fundamentally disagree. I have already indicated that the minister responsible will be providing the member with a written response with regard to the Liard skating rink and the street lights in question. I have already indicated that.

I am advised that he has received a letter on the skating rink and the reasons for why it may or may not be in the supplementary.

The fact is that the member opposite has accused me of stating incorrect information in the House. That is not the case. I stated that, following a meeting with community representatives - in that meeting, it was agreed that the roads-to-resources feasibility study would not proceed without First Nation support. First Nations' support for that has not been received. There has not been a written letter of support from the Liard First Nation for that feasibility study, as was agreed to in the meeting and as has been followed up on.

Mr. Chair, the member opposite and I disagree. I believe this budget is balanced. It does reflect the very real requirements and needs of government to respond to such items as settlement with teachers, increased wage costs in the RCMP contract, increased WCB premiums. It also deals with infrastructure throughout Yukon and it reflects other needs and priorities of Yukoners, including the long-neglected historic resources trust fund.

The member opposite and I fundamentally disagree. That disagreement having been stated on the record, I would invite the member opposite to ask a question about the supplementary bu